


''•■'-•■'-' 






rarragg 




Class. 

Book 

CopyrightN ( 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



THE 

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 
CHALLENGED 

IN THE DISCUSSION OF 

THIRTY-TWO QUESTIONS 

WITH THE 

CATHOLIC LAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION 
OF GEORGIA 



BY 

DR. C. A. YARBROUGH 

MACON, GEORGIA 



published under auspices 

The Patriotic Societies of Macon 

macon, georgia 

1920 



*< 



Copyright, 1920 
By C. A. Yarbrough 



MM 22 mo 

©CI.A570137 



'Fools Detide, Philosophers Investigate " 



TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 

Introductory 5 

"About Roman Catholics" — Newspaper Advertisement 7 

"How It Began" — The Thirty-two Questions Submitted 7 

Copies sent to Mr. A. J. Long and Hon. A. D. Daly 10 

Correspondence with Mr. Long 11 

Laymen's Answers to Questions 14 

Objections to Answers Forwarded to Association 18 

When One Is Responsible for Sin of Another 43 

Roman Catholics and Liquor Traffic 61 

Immutability — Subject of, Discussed 69 

Association Challenged to Debate 70 

Adendum — Remarks on Marriage and Unity of Teaching 72 

Letters from Association Answering Objections : 

Questions Furnished Helpful Index to Anti-Catholic Mind 74 

Association Not Formed for Evangelical Purposes 75 

Suspicion and Trust 76 

Rules of Right Reason 77 

Duty of Citizens 81 

Regarding the Papal Index 83 

If Catholics Are Satisfied 87 

Index Does Not Hamper? 89 

As to Bad Popes 95 

Abridged History of Popes 97 

Index Defended 119 

"Intention" 121 

Intention of Index 126 

Papal Infallibility 131 

Papal Dogmas 133 

Pope Not Infallible in All Things 136 

If Pope Should Be a Bad Man 138 

Infallibility, Supremacy, Inspiration, Revelation 141 

Syllabus of Errors Not Authentic? 142 

Pope's Commands to be Respected and Obeyed Even if Not Assented to 

Internally 151 

Layman's Oath _ 154 

Baptism — Impeachment 156 

Cardinal Gibbons, Sunday Visitor and Bishop Keiley on Baptism 157 

Actual Baptism 159, 163 

The Confessional 166 

Cardinal Gibbons Asked to Furnish Copy of Pontificate Romanum 168 

Priest's Hand-Book 169 

Masonic Influence and Power ,. 182 

Rule of Right Reason 184 

Subjects Consigned to Debate 186 

Who is Representing Catholics in Georgia? 190 

Ferrer, Spanish Modernist, Shot 193 

Teaching of Papal Text-Book on Union of Church and State 32, 195 

Concordats 199 

Romanism and Education in the Philippines 201 

Origin of Papal States 203 

Syllabus of Errors — Misquoted ? „ 208 

Catholic the Only True Church Established by Jesus Christ 215 

Persecution of Catholics 217 

Subjects "Open to Investigation" ? 218 

Bedrock of Protestantism 220 

iii 



TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued page 

Can Laymen Accuse Priest? 222 

Right of Catholics to Investigate 225 

Jesuit Order 226, 228 

Children of Church to Speak for Her 230 

"Peculiar Constructions" „ 236 

Subjects for Debate 237 

Expediency 242 

Ne Temere Decree — Marriage Law 247, 249 

Marriage Law 251 

Priestly Celibacy 254 

Laws of God in Force at All Times 256 

The Divisional Difference 259 

When is One Outside of the Church? 262, 264 

Protestants Can Be Saved 264, 265 

Folder, "Battle Against Freemasonry" — Object? 267, 271 

Joint Publication 271 

Pope Teaches Protestants Can Be Saved? 272 

Who Are Outside the Church? 276 

What is the Advantage of One Being a Catholic? 277 

Heretics Universally Excommunicated 282 

Catholics Obey Conscience 283 

The Pope Alone Has Right to Reason 284 

Cardinal Newman on Conscience 287 

Heretics To Be Killed 291 

Scottish Rite Masons and a Priest — A Parallel? 293 

Busenbaum on Conscience 294 

Does Pope Rule the Soul? 298 

Authority and Obedience as Viewed by Masons 302 

Five Charges Against Freemasonry 303 

Holy Water, Scapular, Rosary 309 

The Glories of Mary by Lugori 310 

Priests to Swear Falsely 321 

Cardinal Jacobatius on Conscience 321 

Prohibited Books 327 

When Human Law Is Not Law... 327 

Comments on Long Letter Concluded by Association 330 

General Albert Pike — A Plea for Peace 333 

The Bishop's Oath — As Printed by a Jesuit Priest 334 

The Oath as Contained in Pontificate Romanum in Latin 336 

Translated 337 

Papal Church Dared to Meet Oath in Court — A Challenge 342 

Oath of Bishop Makes Oath of Knights of Columbus Unnecessary 343 

Private Judgment 351 

Secret Societies Condemned 352 

Who Started the War? 353 

Correspondence on Proposed Debate 356 

Threatening Letter to Rev. T. F. Callaway 370 

Anonymous Letter 375 

Letters to and from Mr. John J. McCreary on Bishop's Oath 375 

A Hotbed of Organized Bigotry — A Folder by a Priest of Alabama 387 

Letters of the Rev. John Wesley _ „ 394 

Conclusion 402 

If the Protestant World Had Its Back Against the Wall — ? 405 

Catholics Can Not Appeal to Civil Law to Stay Orders of the Pope 406 

Retrospective _ 407 

Necessity for Organizing - 410 



INTRODUCTORY 

TO master any subject — whether art, science, music, language, 
or profession — requires several years' study and close appli- 
cation, and the expenditure of considerable money ; for these rea- 
sons, few people undertake the task of becoming proficient in 
more than one. Any one, though, with the time and means, may 
master several branches, and some do ; but it is usually only those 
who purpose teaching, writing, etc. The average person can, how- 
ever, by a little application and at a nominal expense secure a 
sufficient knowledge of the arts and sciences as to understand 
their main principles, and have the satisfaction of knowing their 
value to society in general. 

This is true in regard to the subject of Roman Catholicism; a 
knowlege of it cannot be acquired in a day, week, month. It has 
so many phases which affect the spiritual, physical and intellec- 
tual world that it is necessary to devote considerable time and 
money to it to secure even an insight into the system. That this 
is true is evidenced by the fact that to become a priest twelve 
years or more must be spent studying the various subjects nec- 
essary to qualify one for the priesthood. 

Many good people have never given this question an hour's 
consideration, and if their attention is called to any abstract 
proposition relative thereto, they are apt to say they do not be- 
lieve it. To inform them that aqua pura in Latin means "pure 
water" in English, and then hear them say, "I don't believe it!" 
represents the attitude of those to the papal system who have 
never given it any attention. It would be a waste of energy and 
foolish to try to go far enough in the discussion of the Latin 
tongue to prove to their satisfaction that aqua pura means "pure 
water" — they would have to devote months to the study of that 
language before they would believe. 

I have spent many months in the assiduous study of Roman- 
ism; have closely read thousands of pages of literature, from 
non-Catholic and approved Catholic sources, yet I must confess 
there is more to learn. But what I have gleaned, I have en- 
deavored to so present it in these pages as will give a clear and 
concise understanding of its main features, treating of certain 
fundamental principles of the system that should be considered 
seriously by every one who enjoys the blessings of Liberty pro- 
vided by the Constitution of the United States, and is a compen- 
dium of reliable information that every person should possess, 
which cannot be secured otherwise than by following the course 
pursued by me. 

I believe the reader will be convinced that the Roman Catholic 
Church is a deadly foe to the Constitution of this country, and 
every human right and liberty guaranteed by it. 



To my Catholic friends — especially the jpriests who may read 
after me — I challenge you to meet the issues herein on the ros- 
trum before the people. To resort to the boycott, slander or 
murder, as Pope Leo XIII seems to teach you should do (see dis- 
cussion and comments on Question No. 13 ) , will not strengthen 
the position of the Catholic church in America; and if any one 
should address me, answer those questions which the Catholic 
Laymen's Association of Georgia failed to elucidate. 

I shall be glad to hear from any one who desires to take issue 
with me on any one of the vital questions presented herein, and 
promise to give them a hearing in the next edition. 

In the large volume of matter passing between the Association 
and the author, all of which was prepared with more or less 
haste on the part of each, it was natural for numerous errors of 
various kinds to have been overlooked, as at the time there was 
no thought of putting it all in book form, and as far as I can do 
so without changing any material word or thought, I shall cor- 
rect errors in the correspondence, where I am sure of the mean- 
ing which the Association wished to convey. That no alteration 
in any of the manuscript has been made can always be verified by 
reference to the originals, which are being carefully preserved. 

The Author. 



THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH 
CHALLENGED 

•••• 

HOW IT BEGAN 

IN the spring of 1917, I received a pamphlet from the Catholic 
Laymen's Association of Georgia entitled "A Plea for Peace." 
At that time advertisements were running in the local papers 
from the Association, containing requests similar to the invita- 
tion in the pamphlet, as follows: 

"ABOUT ROMAN CATHOLICS. 

"Get your information first-hand. Upon request we will tell 
you their belief and position, their practices and obligations, their 
rights and duties, as they bear on civic and social relations, public 
questions and good citizenship. 

"Write to the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, 107 
9th St., Augusta, Ga." 

The following list of thirty-two questions was prepared and 
forwarded to the Association by registered mail : 

Macon, Ga., May 2, 1917. 
Catholic Laymen's Association, 

Augusta, Ga. 
Gentlemen : 

I am in receipt of your pamphlet, "A Plea for Peace," and in 
accord with the invitation extended on last page will submit the 
following questions, which I trust you will answer, namely : 

1. Does the Roman Catholic Church, positively or impliedly, 
require its members to believe any doctrine or truth that cannot 
be understood by the human intelligence? 

2. Does your church, impliedly or otherwise, teach that its 
members must accept as true any assertion made by a religious 
superior because of his authority? 

3. Is it not true that to break the seal of confession is a mortal 
sin? If it is, how do you know the priest does not use the im- 
moral, obscene theology of Dens and Liguori with Catholic 
women in the confessional? Name date and authority for discon- 
tinuance. 

4. Are you acquainted with the general text and tenor of the 
various encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and others against Free- 
masonry, and if so, do you agree with them and feel bound to 
carry out their commands? 

5. Are Roman Catholics taught to obey the voice of the pope 
as being the voice of God Almighty? 

6. Are you acquainted with any directions emanating from the 
Vatican at Rome for Roman Catholics to take part in politics, 
so that constitutions and legislation and governments may be 
changed to conform to the principles of the Roman church, and if 
so, what are the "principles" referred to? 

(7) 



8 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

7. Does your church believe and teach that all men are free to 
worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience, 
at all times and under all circumstances? 

8. Do you and your church believe in free public schools, sup- 
ported by the State and free from the control of any church or 
religious organization, including your own? 

9. Do you and the church you represent believe in the separa- 
tion of church and state? 

10. If a Protestant minister and a Roman Catholic barkeeper 
were candidates for the same office — for mayor — which would 
you feel in duty bound to support? Which would generally re- 
ceive the greater number of Catholic votes? 

^ 11. Should your church become dominant in America and recog- 
nized as the religion of state, would you accord freedom of opin- 
ion, of press, of speech and of worship to other denominations, 
even when same actively oppose the Roman Catholic church? 

12. If you answer in the affirmative, please state what you 
would do if the pope should command that such toleration be not 
granted. 

13. Does the Roman Catholic church, impliedly or otherwise, 
teach that (1) the church has the right to employ force, (2) that 
non-Catholics ought to be harmed either in business or in person, 
(3) that the church has the right to remove heretics from the 
earth by death? 

14. Does the Roman Catholic church claim the right to control 
education? If so, name one country where the church has been 
in control for centuries in the past where the percentage of 
ignorance is as small as it is in any Protestant country. 

15. Are Roman Catholics taught that the civil authority ought 
to be subordinate to the ecclesiastical authority? 

16. Do you think there is any persecution of Catholics in this 
country, and if so, on what grounds and by whom do you think 
it is being carried on? 

17. Do you and your church recognize any other church as 
"Christian"? Has any pope ever so declared? 

18. In case of conflict between the laws of your church and the 
laws of the state, which are you in duty bound to obey, as a 
matter of religious conscience? 

19. If it be true that a large percentage of your fellow-citizens 
fear the alleged intention of the Vatican to make the Roman 
Catholic church dominant in the political affairs of this country; 
to suppress Freemasonry and secret orders generally ; to control 
the press; to abridge freedom of speech; to prevent religious 
toleration of other sects, churches or creeds, and to control the 
public school system or destroy it, would you be willing, in order 
to dissipate such ideas, to declare openly, without mental reserva- 
tion or equivocation, on your honor as American citizens, that if 
such be the intention or purpose of the Vatican or the pope, or 
any part of the clergy or laity of your church, to resist the execu- 
tion of such designs to the uttermost and join your fellow- 
citizens in repudiating such attempts? 

20. If you answer that you would, please state in what way or 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 9 

manner such information could be brought to your careful, con- 
scientious attention for consideration — if you could investigate 
such questions independently of your priest? 

21. The Jesuit order was abolished in 1769 by Pope Clement 
XIV; it has been excluded from almost every civilized country 
many times; not permitted even now to enter Roman Catholic 
Spain, although another pope lifted the ban from the order. 
Please state why it (a) was abolished, (b) barred from other 
countries, (c) kept out of Spain now, (d) how one pope can 
"abolish and forever destroy the Society of Jesus" and another 
re-establish the order. 

22. If baptism is essential to salvation and membership in your 
church, and if its validity depends upon whether or not the offi- 
ciating priest had the right "intention" at the time of baptizing a 
subject of the church, how can any one know that he is a mem- 
ber of your church — from the pope on down? Do you require a 
certificate from the priest wherein he declares he had the right 
"intention" at the time of performing the ceremony? 

23. If your priest can turn wine into the blood and body of 
Christ, please state why he cannot turn water into wine. 

24. As your church forbids its members to discuss or study, 
independently of priest-censorship, any subject relating to reli- 
gion, morality, ecclesiastical (church) history, etc., on what in- 
telligent basis do you expect to see peace and harmony estab- 
lished between Roman Catholics and non-Catholics? 

25. Is there any appreciable number of Catholics of Georgia 
in any manner affiliated with the American Federated Catholic 
Societies? 

26. To what extent do you think the organizing of this society 
has been instrumental in arousing an anti-Catholic spirit? 

27. Does your church teach, directly or impliedly, that mem- 
bers must not accuse the priests or bishops even though it be 
known to them that prelates have committed grave sins? If so, 
how can a man protect his home? 

28. Would your association prosecute a priest if he were to 
wrong a member, by appealing to the laws of the land? 

29. A soldier, being under command of superiors, must say and 
do only as he is ordered regardless of his personal opinion or 
wishes. Does this principle obtain in your church? If so, what 
can your association of laymen hope to accomplish? 

30. Why is it a venial sin, that must be confessed, for a Cath- 
olic to attend a Protestant church service, but it is not made a 
sin by your church for its members to engage in the sale of in- 
toxicating liquors? 

31. If your church is the only true church, and its only aim is 
the salvation of souls, and Catholics are taught that there is 
danger of losing their souls in going to Protestant churches, why 
does not your church teach and command its members to keep out 
of the liquor business, if it does not consider entering a Protes- 
tant church worse than running a barroom? 

32. The Ne Temere decree of your church was enforced in 
America in 1908; non-Catholics believe your church becomes 



10 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

more insistent in its demands and efforts to enforce the decrees 
of the Vatican in proportion as it grows in numerical and politi- 
cal strength. If this is not true, please state why this decree was 
not ordered enforced in this country at an earlier period; say, for 
instance, at the time of the Revolutionary or Civil Wars? 

In answering the above interrogatories, do not state your opin- 
ion, or what you may wish as individuals and citizens, but as 
Roman Catholics, proving your answer in each instance by citing 
your highest church authority, that is, popes and councils. 

The above questions, I assure you, have not been formulated in 
a wanton spirit of levity, or antagonism ; they voice a few of the 
many points in the fundamental differences between Roman 
Catholics and non-Catholics, as I see it, and on their adjustment 
to the American ideals of democracy depends the future. 

Trusting you will favor me with an early reply, I am, 

Respectfully, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

In answer to the above, the following acknowledgment was re- 
ceived from the Catholic Laymen's Association, on its printed 
stationery, as were all other letters from it: 

Augusta, Ga., May 7, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 

American National Bank Bldg., 
Macon, Ga. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of the 2d by registered mail just re- 
ceived. The thirty-two questions will be answered just as soon as 
we can get to them. A large number of inquiries, and the limited 
time I can give to the Laymen's work, forces me to beg your 
indulgence for a few days. 

I appreciate the spirit that prompted your inquiry and trust 
that the information sent you will answer your questions fully 
and completely. Very truly yours, 

(Signed) J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

Having been informed through the press that Mr. A. J. Long 
and Hon. Augustin D. Daly, of this city, were officers of the Lay- 
men's Association, copies of the above questions were forwarded 
to them, with the following note : 

Macon, Ga., May 7, 1917. 
Dear Sir: Some three weeks ago I received a pamphlet from 
the Catholic Laymen's Association, title, "A Plea for Peace." 

I understand you are a member of this body, therefore, I am 
sending you the enclosed letter. 

Respectfully, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

Although the Hon. Gus. Daly is an attorney and ex-Recorder 
of the Police Court, he has never acknowledged the communica- 
tion. Mr. A. J. Long, a prominent merchant, replied as follows : 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 11 

Macon, Ga., May 14, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 
Macon, Ga. 
Dear Sir : Your favor of the 7th inst. received. I also received 
the list of questions and impolite suggestions attached thereto. 

Your letter and questions have been forwarded to Mr. J. J. 
Farrell, of Augusta, Ga., who will endeavor to answer them cor- 
rectly. Yours very truly, 

(Signed) A.J.Long. 

The following letter was forwarded to Mr. Long: 

Macon, Ga., May 22, 1917. 
Mr. A. J. Long, 
Macon, Ga. 
Dear Sir : Your letter of the 14th inst., acknowledging receipt 
of mine of the 7th, to hand and, while it does not call for reply, I 
am at a loss to understand what you consider as being an "im- 
polite suggestion," and would kindly ask you to advise, being 
more explicit in reference thereto. 

If the letter contained an impolite suggestion, it was not inten- 
tional. Yours respectfully, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

To this, Mr. Long responded: 

Macon Ga., May 23, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 
Macon, Ga. 

Dear Sir : Replying to your letter of May 22d. 

The third question in the list you sent me on May 2d contains 
the "impolite suggestions" that I referred to in mine to you of the 
14th inst. 

You suggest in that question that immoral practices arise 
from the confessional, and you call for a defense of the confes- 
sional rather than an explanation of the same. 

You may have asked the question without thinking how it 
sounded, at the same time a Catholic's religion is so much a part 
of him that he naturally takes exception to those who question his 
belief or practices as such. 

You also imply in many of the questions that I, on account of 
being a Catholic (if the implication doesn't apply to me it doesn't 
apply to any other Catholic) , am not and cannot be as good an 
American citizen as you or anybody else. This implication I re- 
sent as "impolite," because my patriotism should not be ques- 
tioned by any good citizen, unless for specific reasons arising 
from some personal act of my own, for which I am responsible to 
you as a good citizen and therefore subject to your criticism and 
prosecution if need be. 

To say that I am not a loyal American because of my religion 
is striking at the very foundation upon which this country so 
firmly stands, and the man who charges his fellow-citizen with 
disloyalty because of his religion is himself a bad citizen, because 
he is seeking to tear down the structure of American principles 



12 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

which was built by the brains of men of many religious beliefs, 
and has been maintained by the blood of the patriots from; all 
denominations. 

If you earnestly desire information about the Catholic Church 
and the practices of Catholics, you can get it first-hand by per- 
sonal investigation and observation, which every Catholic will 
welcome and will assist you any way you may desire; but if your 
inquiries are prompted by a spirit of religious intolerance and its 
consequent religious prejudices and ill will, I for one do not ca,re 
to throw away my valuable time in exchaging correspondence 
when no good can come from it. Of course your mind will deter- 
mine whether or not our correspondence will continue. 

Yours very truly, 

A. J. Long. 

I will be glad to have you as my guest at any or all the services 
and show you through the church from pillar to dome and render 
any service in my power in your investigations. 

To this interesting epistle I replied: 

Macon, Ga., June 5, 1917. 
Mr. A. J. Long, 
Macon, Ga. 

Dear Sir: In relation to yours of the 23d instant — 

It is the duty of every citizen to investigate all questions — 
civil, political or religious — that may affect himself, his family, 
of his neighbor. In pursuance of this necessary qualification of 
worthy citizenship I have mapped out such course of procedure 
relative to the study of Roman Catholicism as I consider best 
suited to secure desired information as to the faith and prac- 
tices ENJOINED BY THE SYSTEM. 

No one disputes the fact that Catholicism becomes woven into 
the very warp and woof of those who are born and reared under 
its influence and is a very part of them; that does not signify, 
however, that Catholicism is right or wrong, but that fact does 
demand that those who are not reared under its teaching 
should by investigation and observation, ascertain what are its 
faith and practices and their fruits, and to what extent, if any, 
it would or seeks to interfere with their rights, faith and prac- 
tices as non-Catholics; and Catholics should know that all who 
are not Catholic are just as jealous, and zealous, in defense of 
their religion and other rights as Catholics. 

Being one of the promoters of the Catholic Laymen's Associa- 
tion, you virtually and technically invite questions: you are pre- 
sumed to know that any question, on that hypothesis, is for the 
purpose of eliciting information on that particular phase of 
Catholicism as a system, and the personal equation enters into 
it only as in that of a witness in a court of justice; and it is not 
germain whether the questions be such as require defense or 
explanation, provided the one or the other establishes what is 
the truth. 

Without an admission, or evidence of previous misconduct, 
any one would be a bad citizen if he should charge another with 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 13 

disloyalty, just because he is a Catholic; such charge, as you 
rightly suggest, should be based upon act and, hence, subject to 
personal criticism or lagal action. These three elements (ad- 
mission, evidence of past record, and overt acts) enter very 
largely into my plan of investigating Catholicism, using such 
means and applying the same rules and principles in a way that 
are usual in legal procedure; this may be classed as "intoler- 
ance:" it is the only reasonable basis upon which truth may 
be established, to the satisfaction of a reasoning mind. 

With all the foregoing in view, I submitted to you a list of 
questions; in not answering, you exercised your prerogative, but 
as you turned the list over to the Catholic Laymen's Associa- 
tion, I shall take it for granted that answers rendered to the 
questions have your endorsement and are approved as such, un- 
less I am specifically advised to the contrary. 

Whether I am tolerant of, or prejudiced against, papalism, in 
degree, will be determined by my findings. In no event could I 
visit either prejudice or intolerance upon individual Catholics; 
if you would devote a little time to the study of it, you 
would doubtless find that the attitude of the Protestant mind 
to Catholics and to papalism is well illustrated by the attitude 
of the Government of the United States relative to the German 
people and the Imperial German Government. 

I should have answered sooner, but have been so busy I am 
just now answering. 

Trusting you will give this your attention at your earliest 
convenience, I am, Very respectfully, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

Mr. Long has not answered this letter. 



LAYMEN'S ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 

Augusta, Ga., May 18, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 

American National Bank Bldg., 
Macon, Ga. 

Dear Sir : Replying now to the questions in your letter of May 
2d, I give you the following answers seriatim. [The questions 
will be omitted here, presenting the answers only. — Author.] 

Answer to 1: The Catholic Church does positively require its 
members to believe truth that cannot be understood by the human 
intelligence, such as, that "there are Three Persons in One God,'* 
that "the Word was made Flesh," that "this is My Body," and 
many others. The Catholic religion is a supernatural religion 
and necessarily teaches supernatural truths, which, of course, are 
above the comprehension of the human intelligence. 

Answer to 2 : No. 

Answer to 3 : The seal of confession does not impose any obli- 
gation on the penitent, but on the priest only. The penitent man 
or woman is free to say what was said in confession, either by 
himself or herself or by the priest. Every penitent is free to tell 
to any person whomsoever anything whatsoever that was said or 
done in the confessional. Catholics frequently talk among them- 
selves about the admonitions and counsels given them in the con- 
fessional, the penances imposed, etc. This, of course, is a com- 
plete answer to that part of your question referring to Catholic 
women, unless indeed you presume to accuse them of concealing 
from their husbands, from their own daughters even what would 
be unnatural for them to conceal, and what they have every right 
to disclose. 

Answer to 4 : I am acquainted with the encyclicals you refer 
to and agree with their general text and tenor. They contain no 
commands to be carried out, but only prohibitions to be observed, 
which are in substance simply that Catholics should not become 
members of the society of Freemasonry, or in any way encourage 
or assist this society as such. 

Answer to 5 : No. 

Answer to 6: No, nor is anyone else, because no such direc- 
tions were ever given. 

Answer to 7: Yes, so long as they are decent about it, and 
orderly. 

Answer to 8 : Yes, we help support them, without protest and 
willingly. For ourselves we prefer parochial schools, in order to 
teach our children the faith of their fathers ; but we recognize the 
necessity of public schools and we patronize them where we can 
not maintain our own. And we pay our portion of taxes to sup- 
port them everywhere. 

Answer to 9: As applied in this country and secured under 
our constitution and laws we do believe in the separation of 
church and state. 

Answer to 10: Probably neither one; and very likely. A Cath- 
olic is in bad business as a barkeeper, and if he would listen to< 

(14) 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 15 

the voice of the church, as pronounced in the Third Plenary 
Council of Baltimore, he would not be one. The Protestant minis- 
ter is in bad business as a candidate for office. One professing to 
carry the message of the Gospel between God and man, be he 
Catholic or Protestant, can just as well keep out of politics, and 
his being a candidate against the barkeeper would scarcely better 
matters. Catholics are as much divided in politics as any other 
class of people in this country. 

Answer to 11: Catholics have no desire whatever that their 
religion be recognized as the religion of state in America. We 
are perfectly satisfied, from the highest prelate to the lowest lay- 
man, with the rights guaranteed by our constitution. And we 
would oppose any change in our constitution looking to the recog- 
nition cf any religion as the religion of state. It follows that 
we stand for that freedom of opinion, of press, of speech, of wor- 
ship, to all denominations that our constitution and our laws now 
provide for. 

Answer to 12 : In the event you imagine, were it possible for 
it to come about, we would treat the pope's command as an usur- 
pation of our rights as American citizens to conduct our national 
affairs in such manner as we might think just and right. The 
pope has no authority to interfere in matters of politics or in the 
right administration of our civic affairs, and if he should, we 
would pay no attention to him. 

Answer to 13: (1) NO. (2) NO. (3) NO. 

Answer to 14: The church has the right to teach all religious 
truth. She claims no other right in matters of education. The 
second part of the above question is based on a misconception. 
The church has not been in control of any country in the world, 
neither for centuries nor for a century, nor for any length of 
time. The percentage of illiteracy in countries where the ma- 
jority of the people is Catholic compares favorably with that 
where the majority of the country is non-Catholic. As proof of 
this, we can begin right at home. The percentage of illiteracy in 
the United States is most in those states where there are fewest 
Catholics — North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi and Ala- 
bama, for example. We do not say, however, that this is because 
there are more Protestants than Catholics in these states. We 
know that there are reasons that fully explain the backwardness 
of those states along educational lines. Similar reasons prevail 
in regard to countries as in regard to states. Of course, you know 
that the first schools, the first colleges,. the first universities on 
the American continent were started by Catholics. You doubtless 
know that the first free schools of modern times, practically 
every university of Europe, the very systems of education in 
vogue throughout the civilized world originated with Catholics. 

Answer to 15 : No. 

Answer to 16 : There can be no doubt of the fact that there is 
a systematic campaign of villification and slander being carried 
on against the Catholic Church and her people in this country. 
It is being conducted by two classes of persons : first, those who 
work it for the sake of the financial returns it brings them in the 



16 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

way of subscriptions and donations, and second, those who aim to 
destroy all religion and are merely attacking the Catholic Church 
as being the oldest and most vigorous exponent of Christianity. 

Answer to 17: The Catholic Church does not recognize any 
other church as having been founded by Christ. Christ estab- 
lished but one church. Our church teaches, and we Catholics be- 
lieve, that the Catholic Church is that church. 

Answer to 18 : In case of the conflict you imagine, either the 
church authorities would be exceeding their just powers or the 
state authorities would be exceeding their just powers, and it 
would be the duty of every man, Catholic or not Catholic, in such 
a case, to determine for himself as a matter of conscience which 
of these authorities was the usurper and firmly to stand for the 
other. 

Answer to 19 : Yes. 

Answer to 20 : Those who claim to be in possession of such in- 
formation must themselves find some respectful way of bringing 
it to the attention of others. Of course, we can investigate such 
questions, if at all, independently of our priest. There is no ques- 
tion of any sort open to investigation that we are not as free to 
investigate as any other persons. 

Answer to 21 : The Jesuit order was abolished as a matter of 
internal church policy. It is barred from some countries and in 
some countries from some dioceses, for the same reasons. Every 
society within the church, Jesuit, Dominican, Francsican, etc., 
exists by consent of the head of the church, and can be suspended, 
abolished, reinstated or created anew as the Roman Pontiff may 
deem necessary. They may enter this diocese or that Or be ex- 
cluded from one or another as the bishop of the diocese may deem 
to the best interest of the church in that jurisdiction. In some 
dioceses only one or two orders are permitted charges, in others 
more, in some all may have charges. The whole matter is a ques- 
tion of internal church policy. 

Answer to 22: Baptism is not essential to salvation. It is not 
essential to membership in the Catholic Church. Its validity does 
not depend upon whether the officiating priest had the right 
"intention" or not; its validity does not depend upon whether or 
not a priest officiates. Any person, Catholic, non-Catholic, Prot- 
estant, Jew, or Infidel can administer valid baptism. 

Answer to 23: Christ did not direct His apostles to turn 
water into wine. He Himself turned water into wine, but said 
nothing about it. He later changed wine into His blood, said, 
"This is My Blood," and then directed His apostles to do what he 
had done in commemoration of him. To be commemorative, this 
act must go on to the end of time. The priest has authority to 
carry out His directions. But he has not the authority to turn 
water into wine, as you suggest. 

Answer to 24 : Your presumption is all wrong, for our church 
does not forbid her children to discuss or study independently of 
priest-censorship any subject relating to religion, morality, eccle- 
siastical (church) history, etc. You evidently have been badly 
misinformed on this matter. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 17 

Answer to 25: Yes. 

Answer to 26 : I will say to no extent worth mentioning. 

Answer to 27: No, the church does not teach this, either 
directly or indirectly, explicitly or impliedly. A Catholic may 
protect his home in the same way a non-Catholic may protect his. 

Answer to 28: If it were necessary to secure redress, we 
would. 

Answer to 29: The principle of action between a soldier and 
his superior officers does not obtain between the church and her 
children. The principle of action in the Catholic church is rather 
that prevailing in a well-regulated, God-fearing, devoted, affec- 
tionate family. 

Answer to 30: It is not necessarily a sin to attend a Protes- 
tant church service ; it depends on many circumstances. It is more 
than likely a sin for Catholics to engage in the indiscriminate sale 
of intoxicating liquors, although that, too, depends upon circum- 
stances. You should know also that what is termed a venial sin 
is not a matter of confession. 

Answer to 31: In the Third Plenary Council the hierarchy of 
the church in the United States expressly enjoined upon Cath- 
olics to sever their connection with the liquor traffic. 

Answer to 32 : The reason that the Ne Temere decree was not 
put into effect throughout the United States until 1908 was be- 
cause of the absence of a sufficient number of Catholic priests in 
this country to render the observance of this rule practical on the 
part of Catholics. The church is always solicitous not to enjoin 
upon her children a rule of conduct that would be generally a 
hardship and for this reason the rule requiring all Catholics who 
marry to come before a priest was delayed until the number of 
priests was such as to make one available in most any part of the 
country at most any time. 

To cite authorities for each of the above questions as you here 
request would require space unlimited; I am sure it will be agree- 
able to you, and I prefer, that you will point out any answer 
which is not entirely satisfactory, and I shall then support that 
with such authority as must make it satisfactory. 

If any of these answers are not satisfactory to you, I shall be 
glad to treat more at length such as you may indicate. 

Yours very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Chm. 

Mr. J. J. Farrell, Macon ' Ga " Ma ^ 25 ' 1917 ' 

Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, 
Augusta, Ga. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 18th inst. received. Press of business 
has prevented giving your answers more than a scanscion glance. 
After careful perusal, will avail myself of your kind request, by 
taking up further with you such questions as may not be an- 
swered satisfactorily. 

Thanking you for your letter, I am, 

Very truly, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 



18 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Macon, Ga., Sept. 7, 1917. 
Catholic Laymen's Association, 
Augusta, Ga. 

Gentlemen: Your answers to my questions have been care- 
fully reviewed, and as a whole, they are not satisfactory. 

I have gone into each one to some extent in order to make it 
clear wherein and why they are unsatisfactory, and from the 
various reasons advanced, you will learn the general impression 
made on the minds of those who study this subject at all from a 
standpoint of fundamentals. 

The conclusions relative to each question are based on a careful 
analysis of such reliable information available at this time, in 
conjunction with the manner in which the questions have been 
treated by your Association. 

I am devoting some thought to this matter ; I deem it the duty 
of every citizen worthy of the name to investigate any and all 
questions that may affect him, his family or his neighbor, 
whether such questions be social, political, religious or otherwise. 

I have weighed such evidence as is at this time available, direct 
and indirect, attaching to each such weight and importance as 
its source warrants, and the means of each witness for knowing 
what is the truth; eulogistic literature, from inside and outside 
sources, have no appreciable influence: as long as Catholic and 
pro-Catholic speakers and writers ignore the canon law of the 
Church of Rome, and contemporaneous acts, overt and covert, 
demonstrate that such Vatican laws areof full effect and force 
whenever expediency warrants, just that long will there be 
opposition to Catholics politically. 

Your answers to my questions would be ample and satisfac- 
tory to one who is governed by the Index of the Roman church, 
but you ought to know that those who are not barred by the 
Index from reading the history of your church, its laws, the- 
ology, etc., require more than the mere assertion of laymen; such 
must be from official utterances of those who are recognized as 
having the right to speak for and in the name of the pope con- 
cerning what may be the "intention" of the Roman church, as 
non-Catholics are more concerned with this than with the ques- 
tions of faith and practice, for the time being — "faith and prac- 
tice" always follow the culmination of "intention." 

If, in my analyses of your answers, I have not revealed the 
essence or genius of Roman,Catholicism, I would be very glad to 
have you correct me. Very truly, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

With this letter was a paper, "Reasons Why Answers to Ques- 
tions Are Not Satisfactory." 

To get the original questions, the Association's answers and 
my objections or criticisms of answers assembled in order of 
their individual connection, the correspondence will be collated 
under each question number, followed by the answer of the Asso- 
ciation, then my criticism. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 19 

No. 1: Does the Roman Catholic church, positively or im- 
pliedly, require its members to believe any doctrine or truth that 
cannot be understood by the human intelligence? 

Association's answer: The ^Catholic Church does positively 
require its members to believe truth that cannot be understood 
by the human intelligence such as, "there are Three Persons in 
one God," that "the Word was made Flesh," that "this is My 
Body," and many others. The Catholic religion is a supernatural 
religion, and necessarily teaches supernatural truths, which of 
course are above the comprehension of the human intelligence. 

No. 2: Does your church, impliedly or otherwise, teach that 
its members must accept as true any assertion made by a reli- 
gious superior because of his authority? 

Answer: No. 

CRITICISM OF ANSWERS BY AUTHOR 

Questions Nos. 1 and 2 — These two are practically one ques- 
tion, they being a sub-division of a single sentence from the 
Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII against Freemasonry, i. e., 
"they allow no dogma of religion or truth which cannot be under- 
stood by the human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought to be 
believed by reason of his AUTHORITY." He very clearly im- 
plied the well-known rule of the Catholic church, that laymen 
MUST believe as true any assertion made by a religious superior, 
because of his authority — all bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, 
etc., are "religious superiors," and in answering a part of the 
sentence affirmatively and the other in the negative, you demon- 
strate that either you or your pope is in error. 

Stated in a sentence, your answer to Question 2 is the position 
the whole non-Catholic world sustains to the papacy; if you 
maintain that attitude in fact, you destroy the very foundation 
upon which the superstructure of the Catholic church rests. In 
electing him pope, the cardinals delegate to him the place of God 
Almighty on earth, with all the AUTHORITY of God; he in 
turn proclaims to the cardinals, bishops, priests, etc., what he 
considers is truth, and vests them with AUTHORITY to teach 
it, and no layman has the right to question. Through this door 
enters all the sayings of the papal "Fathers" which laymen can 
not read or study, but must accept from the priest that which he 
has been "authorized" to proclaim, as a rule and guide for their 
faith and practice, regardless of whether it be from Holy Writ 
or the Traditions of Men. 

To illustrate how far this "authority" is recognized by Cath- 
olics, you say you believe in the Real Presence in the Mass, just 
because priests and bishops say the pope says it is; and it seems 
to non-Catholics that a mind subscribing to that is willing to do 
anything required by the law of those in authority. 

Your answers to Questions 1 and 2 reveal a general lack of 
knowledge of the spirit of Catholicism that is surprising, and 



20 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

you presume to teach others! To those who really understand 
the principles of a proposition, the slightest allusion embodying 
them is instantly recognized, even if the verbiage is different. In 
this case you failed utterly to recognize, not only the basic prin- 
ciples underlying the questions, but also the language of one of 
your greatest popes. 

Students discover deep mysteries concerning the Past, Present 
and Future, pertaining to man, which call for an exercise of faith 
in God and His Providence when they swing out of range of the 
human intelligence; at that point, Catholics and non-Catholics 
must separate. By reason of his "authority," the pope makes 
laymen rely upon him and forbids exercise of reason in all mat- 
ters Past, Present and Future, demanding that what has been 
said, he may now proclaim, or decree in the future, must be 
accepted by Catholics unquestioned on pain of excommunication 
— a principle in its operation far exceeding the "authority" God 
exercises, thus erecting an insurmountable barrier between 
Catholics and others, as the main preoccupat'on of true Catholics 
is, to endeavor to bring all men under this authority of the pope, 
who become highly incensed when they discover non-Catholics 
industriously engaged in barricading against subjection to papal 
"authority." 

No. 3 : Is it not true, that to break the seal of confession is a 
mortal sin? If it is, how do you know the priest does not use 
the immoral, . obscene theology of Dens and Liguori with Cath- 
olic women in the confessional? Name date and authority of 
discontinuance. 

Answer: The seal of confession does not impose any obliga- 
tion on the penitent, but on the priest only. The penitent man or 
woman is free to say what was said in confession, either by him- 
self or herself or by the priest. Every penitent is free to .tell to 
any person whomsoever anything whatsoever that was said or 
done in the confessional. Catholics frequently talk among them- 
selves about the admonitions and counsels given them in the 
confessional, the penances imposed, etc. This, of course, is a 
complete answer to that part of your question referring to 
Catholic women, unless indeed, you presume to accuse them of 
concealing from their husbands, from their own daughters even, 
what would be unnatural for them to conceal and what they have 
every right to disclose. 

CRITICISM 

You say the seal of confession does not apply to penitents. 
Liguori, the Doctor of the whole church, says, relative to the 
Sacramental Seal: "The penitent is bound by nature to keep 
SECRET ALL THINGS said to him by his confessor, IF their 
exposure would bring damage to the confessor (i. e., priest) or 
injury and contempt on the Sacrament." VI, 647. 

Prop. 1367, ques.: "Must the priest be denounced who plans 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 21 

with a woman . . . that . . . she feign sickness when he 
comes to her house in order to act criminally with her?" Ans.: 
"No," with reasons assigned that every man should read. 

Prop. 1370, ques. : "Must the penitent be denounced who 
solicits in confessional?" Ans.: "No," with reasons. 

Tertullian, one of the holy fathers of the Roman church, 
teaches that bashfulness ought not to cause neglect of confes- 
sion. 

Saint Ambrose, on Confession, says: "Confess FREELY to 
the priest the HIDDEN SECRETS of thy soul, and SHOW 
THEM, as thou wouldst thy hidden wounds to thy physician." 

On this subject a Catholic Catechism, having the imprimatur 
of Cardinals Wiseman and McClosky, states that confession must 
be "1 — entire, 2 — sincere, 3 — clear;" entire: confess all grievous 
sins; sincere: conceal NOTHING; clear: when the priest can 
understand EVERYTHING well; DISTINCTLY name and 
specify different sins. 

If a penitent is ashamed to make a SINCERE confession, this 
Catechism declares it "procures him neither remission of sins 
nor peace of conscience; but that the confession, as well as the 
communion which follows it, is another grievous sin — a sacrilege 
— and deserves eternal damnation." Deharbe, pp. 284-5-6. 

From a priest's hand-book, approved by the late Archbishop 
Quigley of the Diocese of Chicago, under general caption of Con- 
fession, sub-topic "Adultery," we discover the Church of Rome in 
the nineteenth century endorsing and practicing the doctrine of 
Ambrose of the fourth century, as follows : 

"Have you deliberately indulged or taken pleasure in impure 
thoughts? HOW OFTEN? Have you entertained impure de- 
sires? Have you committed unchaste acts when alone? IS THIS 
A HABIT? Have you been guilty of immodest acts with an- 
other?" p. 160. 

The above proves beyond a doubt to a reasoning mind that 
priests of Rome MUST tear from women that garment of mod- 
esty which nature supplied, and probe the very secret recesses 
of the heart in the confessional, and lay bare to a bachelor her 
inmost thoughts, unless the priest is disobedient to his SYSTEM. 

I am not satisfied with your answer to that part of the ques- 
tion relating to seal of confession. As to Catholic women — I 
accuse them of nothing, but in the light of the preponderance 
of available evidence, I DO accuse your system of religion as 
being an enemy of, and Catholic men as recreant toward, 
womanhood, regardless of race, color or creed! The foregoing 
quotations from the practices of your church stand as a challenge 
for real manhood to defend womanhood against one of the deep- 
est pitfalls ever dug in the pathway of the human race. 

I question this practice of your church, that seeks to tear even 



22 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the fig leaves from the race; and since you enter a denial to the 
fact, I will demonstrate, on your own ground, with the theory of 
your own church in action, that the confessional and its seal are 
facts. You suggest, like a heretic, that it would be "unnatural" 
for a woman to conceal certain things from her husband or 
daughter, and in doing this you vitiate, destroy and nullify 
your answer to No. 1. (This is one of the dogmas of your church 
that swings out beyond the ken of the human intelligence, re- 
quiring an unquestioning faith in the AUTHORITY of a pope 
to make it right.) When you take the faith and practices of the 
Roman church into the realm of NATURE, they at once become 
supernatural, unnatural, or repugnant, depending solely on the 
state of mind superinduced by early influence and whether or not 
the Index has operated to an end. There must be repentance for, 
before God forgives, sin; He needs no Versicle. Now, then, on 
p. 275 of Catechism we cite: 

"Does the priest truly remit sins, or does he only declare that 
they are remitted?" Ans. : "The priest does really and truly 
remit the sins in virtue of the power given him by Christ." Here 
we see that the priest is ENTITLED to know and MUST ascer- 
tain exactly what sin has been committed before forgiving it, or 
prescribing penance therefor; and it is reasonable to infer that 
one who believes the priest CAN forgive sin realizes the neces- 
sity of CONFESSING any sin, and by that very fact must also 
believe that the priest is so close to God as to partake of His 
divine nature, essence and qualities, and, believing this, will 
naturally tell him what she would consider unnatural to tell her 
husband or daughter ; to ascribe this power to a man carries with 
it all the rights and prerogatives of God. 

It was at your solicitation that these questions were asked 
relating to the faith and practices of your church, and the bur- 
den is upon you to satisfy a reasoning mind as to what is the 
truth ; repeating the original request : Please state date of decree 
and name of pope abolishing confessional ; the foregoing citations 
from authoritative sources establish the fact of the confessional 
and the seal, which remain part of Catholic faith and practice 
till some general council or pope orders discontinuance. 

In my brief research I find there are many requirements in 
your faith and practices, established on traditions of men, that ap- 
peal to the uninitiated as unnatural, and the confessional is one 
of them. Of course, I understand a great deal depends upon train- 
ing; mothers have often cast their baby girls to alligators at the 
behest of their priests, who trained them to believe that to do so 
was natural and pleasing to their god. If you begin early 
enough with a child, and persist in a necessary oversight, you 
have a Chinese woman of large stature and a small foot; if you 
can govern what it reads or hears, and place its intellect under 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 23 

the Index, when it becomes an old man he will call a roaring 
furnace a refrigerator, and a refrigerator a furnace, and be 
sincere enough to fight for it, however unnatural or supernatural 
it may appear to those not subject to such training. 

A mind that can be so trained as to believe a man can turn a 
little piece of rice cake and a little glass of wine into separate 
and distinct bodies of Christ — the veritable blood, flesh, bones, 
etc. — it seems to me, is capable of believing that that man can 
do nor say anything incompatible with God. 

If this is not a correct interpretation of the spirit of this doc- 
trine, please setjne right. 

No. 4 : Are you acquainted with the general text and tenor of 
the various encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and others against 
Freemasonry, and if so, do you agree with them and feel bound 
to carry out their commands? 

Answer: I am acquainted with the encyclicals you refer to 
and agree with their general text and tenor. They contain no 
commands to be carried out, but only prohibitions to be observed, 
which are in substance simply that Catholics should not become 
members of the society of Freemasonry or in any way encourage 
or assist this society as such. 

CRITICISM 

Your answer here is palpably inconsistent with other answers, 
on which I desire more light. The general text and tenor of the 
decrees against Freemasonry is epitomized by Pope Leo XIII, 
on pp. 88-106, Great Encyclical Letters. He says: "The parti- 
sans of evil seem to be combining together . . . lead on or 
assisted by . . . the Freemasons, . . . They are now boldly 
rising up against God Himself . . . utterly despoiling the 
nations of Christendom, " and makes use of "fraud or audacity;" 
that it is his duty to use his "AUTHORITY to the very utter- 
most against so great an evil" and to bring more "into light its 
power for evil and to do what We can to arrest the contagion of 
this fatal plague." Asserts if a member is disobedient, "to sub- 
mit to the direst penalties and death itself . . . punishment is 
inflicted on them not infrequently and with so much audacity 
and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes punishment 
for his crime . . . arms men's right hands for bloodshed after 
securing immunity for their crimes." Masonry "is in antago- 
nism with justice and natural uprightness" and is "essentially 
opposed to natural virtue . . . that which is their ultimate 
purpose forces itself into view, namely, the utter overthrow of 
that whole religious and political order of the world which the 
Christian teaching has produced . . . Criminal acts . . . 
their very foulness strike with horror . . . they allow no 
dogma of religion or truth which cannot be understood by the 
human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought to be believed by 



24 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

reason of his authority . . . they declare to the people that 
State and Church ought to be altogether disunited," and that 
"the rights of the church are not spared;" that Freemasonry 
caused the pope to be "thrust out from . . . his civil prince- 
dom;" that Masonry teaches "the multitude should be satisfied 
with a boundless vice." It teaches "all men have the same rights" 
and that "each one is naturally free . . . teaches that it is an 
act of violence to require men to obey any AUTHORITY other 
than that which is obtained from themselves," and that "power is 
held by the command or permission of the people." Because Free- 
masonry holds that all religions should occupy the same place in 
society, he says, "In this insane and wicked endeavor we may 
almost see the implacable hatred and spirit of revenge with 
which Satan himself is inflamed against Jesus Christ. — So also 
the stupendous endeavor of Freemasons to destroy the chief 
foundations of justice and honesty, ... in this grave and wide- 
spread evil, it is Our duty, Venerable Brethren, to find a remedy. 
. . . We pray and beseech you ... to join your efforts with 
Ours, and earnestly to strive for the extirpation of this foul 
plague . . . tear away the mask from Freemasonry . . . 
and by sermons and pastoral letters to instruct the people . . . 
as to the depravity of their opinions and the wickedness of their 
acts;" that "the whole principle and object of the sect lies in 
what is vicious and bad." Under direction of the bishop, all 
parents, religious instructors and priests are to "use every op- 
portunity in their Christian teaching, of warning their children 
and pupils of the infamous nature of these societies. . . . The 
sect of Freemasons . . . excite one another to an audacity for 
evil things. . . . Let us take as our intercessor the Virgin 
Mary, Mother of God, so that she . . . may show her power 
over these evil sects, in which is revived the contumacious spirit 
of the demon, together with all his unsubdued perfidity and 
deceit." 

On behalf of the Catholics of the State of Georgia, you say you 
are familiar with all the above — its general text and tenor — and 
AGREE with it. Is this attitude a result of a first-hand knowl- 
edge on your part of the tenets and practices of the Masonic 
order, and by observation you have found that Freemasonry "is 
in antagonism with justice and natural uprightness and is essen- 
tially opposed to natural virtue," or are Catholics in duty bound 
to oppose the order in obedience to the authority of religious 
superiors? 

Leo XIII specifically orders all Catholics to "earnestly strive 
for the extirpation of this foul plague" and further commands 
"parents, religious instructors and priests . . . use every op- 
portunity ... of warning their children and pupils" against 
the order; and "by sermons and pastoral letters to instruct the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 25 

people as to the artifices used by societies of this kind in seducing 
and enticing men into their ranks." 

You say, however, that the pope has issued no commands to be 
earried out by Catholics — but do agree with what he says against 
the order! 

With a few changes in the text, Leo's encyclical against Free- 
masonry so thoroughly describes the Jesuit order as demon- 
strated by history and methods, that it would seem he used some 
old enyclicial against the Jesuits, substituting "Freemasonry" 
for "Society of Jesus." 

To Americans, Freemasonry, like religion, has a right to exist 
under the Constitution of the United States; and it is logical to 
presume that those who would seek its destruction, because de- 
manded by an alien influence, are ready and eager to destroy any 
other right under the Constitution that cannot be subjugated to 
such influence ; and there are many millions of people in America 
who are neither Masons nor church members, who take exception 
to any influence that would tend to destroy this provision of the 
Constitution; because they know if Freemasonry can be "extir- 
pated," in like manner all religions save the Roman could be de- 
stroyed, which would ultimately result in union of Church and 
State, the objective of all true Catholics — especially when under 
the direction of the Jesuits. 

Perhaps you Catholic laymen — and priests — have not consid- 
ered this fact : If the Grand Masters of the various Grand Lodges 
of the several States had issued letters against Catholicism simi- 
lar to that of Leo against Freemasonry, in connection with the 
powerful influence they could wield outside of the order, the 
Catholic church long ago would have been stripped of her faith 
and practices in action, so that its existence would be about as 
that of a Protestant church in Spain. Is not this true? Can you 
offer any reason why the order should not pursue this course? 
So far, however, it has remained practically impassive and indif- 
ferent, no Grand Lodge taking notice of papalism to my knowl- 
edge. This alone should convince a reasoning man that Leo did 
not adhere strictly to the truth in his letter against Freemasonry 
and that in causing Catholics to assume that attitude against the 
order, with its attendant strife, committed a grave blunder, exer- 
cised poor judgment and very little consideration for the welfare, 
peace and harmony of his subjects in this country, in committing 
his "children" to the task of "extirpating this foul plague ; " and 
it would be comical, if it were not so tragic, for Catholics of 
Georgia to make a "Plea for Peace" in a State where there are 
twice as many men affiliated with the Masonic order as there are 
men, women and children in the Catholic church — a small minor- 
ity pleading in one breath, "Let us have peace," yet virtually say- 
ing in the next, "We desire to extirpate you!" You agree with 



26 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Leo that this order, composed of the best men in every commu- 
nity in the nation, should be destroyed because of its "evil" 
nature ! 

Like a sturdy, grown man, Masonry has taken very little notice 
of the pope and his children up to the present; but some day 
"patience may cease to be a virtue," when Masons and Protest- 
ants may teach their children the history, canon law and theology 
and "intention" of the Roman church; teach them how an old 
man in Italy can force millions of American citizens to hate their 
fellow-citizens and would command them, if strong enough, to 
"extirpate" them because they refuse to let him dictate what they 
shall read, think or say. The existence of the Roman church de- 
pends upon the Index and the accident of birth, as is evidenced 
by your several answers to my questions. The law, history and 
theology of the Roman church — ah! they reveal the "intention" 
of papalism! The pope does well to maintain his Index for his 
own existence; but in calling on those under his authority to 
assist him in the processes of "extirpation" of those who refuse 
to be circumscribed in their investigations by such Index, he can 
not well expect those whom he would so subjugate to go to any 
great pains to place his "children" in public schools and political 
office where they may assist in carrying out his "intention." 

No. 5: Are Roman Catholics taught to obey the voice of the 
pope as being the voice of God Almighty? 
Answer : No. 

CRITICISM 

To this you answer "No." Leo, Great Encyclical Letters, p.S04, 
declares: "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." 
On p. 458: "We hold the place of Him who came to save that 
which was lost." On 380: "Obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the 
proof of the true faith." 194: Catholics "must allow themselves 
to be RULED and DIRECTED by the AUTHORITY and leader- 
ship of bishops, and above all by the Apostolic See." 193 : "The 
supreme teacher in the church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of 
minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the 
one faith, COMPLETE SUBMISSION and OBEDIENCE of 
WILL to the church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to GOD HIM- 
SELF." 183 : "It is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to 
RULE with SUPREME POWER" members of the Catholic 
church, and (130) says that "what the Roman Pontiffs have 
hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm 
grasp of mind." These citations from one who reigned so many 
years seem to indicate that Catholics are "taught to obey the 
voice of the pope as being the voice of God Almighty." If this is 
not the literal teaching of your church, words and language con- 
vey no meaning to those outside of it. Do you maintain your 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 27 

answer "No" to this question? If so, support it with reasonable 
proof. 

No. 6: Are you acquainted with any directions emanating 
from the Vatican at Rome, for Roman Catholics to take part in 
politics, so that constitutions and legislation and governments 
may be changed to conform to the principles of the Roman 
Church, and if so, what are the "principles" referred to? 

Answer: No, nor is any one else, because no such directions 
were ever given. 

CRITICISM 

You answer, "No ... no such directions were ever given." 
There seems to be a wide gulf between your answer and the fun- 
damental teaching of your church, indicating either you do not 
understand the faith and practices of your church or that you 
realize they are wrong, or that you are attempting to "deny the 
faith." Speaking as to the "Chief Duties of Catholics as Citi- 
zens," Leo says, pp. 190-1, that "the laity should, as far as possi- 
ble, be brought actively into play . . . the church ... is to con- 
tend as an army drawn up in battle array," and that "neither can 
any one of its members live as he may choose, NOR ELECT 
THAT MODE OF FIGHTING which best pleases him." Also, 
194: That "what we are bound to believe, and what we are 
OBLIGED TO DO, are laid down, as we have stated ... by 
the Supreme Pontiff . . . the church directing her aim TO 
GOVERN THE MINDS OF MEN ... a task she is wholly 
bent upon accomplishing." These utterances establish the essen- 
tial poise of the Catholic mind, if they are real Catholics, and the 
following also emanating from the Vatican directs the line of ac- 
tion of Catholics politically : Says Leo, p. 198, "the church cannot 
give countenance to those whom she knows to be imbued with a 
spirit of hostility to her; who refuse openly to respect her rights. 
. . . These precepts contain the ABIDING PRINCIPLE by 
which EVERY Catholic should shape his conduct in regard to 
public life." That "it is fit and proper to give support to men of 
acknowledged worth, AND who PLEDGE themselves to deserve 
well in the Catholic cause;" that (202) "the political prudence of 
the Pontiff ... is ... to regulate the actions of Christian" 
(«. e., Catholic) "citizens. . . (130) It is also of great mo- 
ment ... to take a prudent part in the business of municipal 
administration and to endeavor above all to INTRODUCE EF- 
FECTIVE MEASURES . . so public provision may be made 
for the instruction of youth in religion" (i.e., in Romanism) ". . . 
it is generally fitting and salutary that Catholics extend their 
efforts beyond this restricted sphere, and GIVE ATTENTION 
TO NATIONAL POLITICS," and says that "these Our precepts 
are addressed to ALL nations. . . ." (131) : "Catholics have 
just reasons for taking part in the conduct of public affairs . . . 



28 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

and to use their best endeavors to INFUSE, as it were, INTO 
ALL THE VEINS OF THE STATE the healthy SAP AND 
BLOOD of Christian (papal) wisdom and virtue . . . (132) : 
First and foremost it is the duty of all Catholics worthy of the 
name ... to endeavor to bring back ALL CIVIL SOCIETY 
to the form and patterns of Christianity (Catholicism) which 
We have described," and that where there is freedom of thought, 
of press, of speech, or of conscience or writing, "it is lawful to 
seek for a CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT as will bring about 
due liberty of action" for the Church of Rome to suppress such 
freedom, and apply the Index. He further says "it is not of itself 
wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the 
Catholic doctrine be maintained as the origin and exercise of 
power." That (197) "it is always urgent, and indeed the MAIN' 
PREOCCUPATION to take thought how best to consult the in- 
terests of Catholicism." 

In an Encyclical, November 7, 1885, Leo says: "All Catholics 
must make themselves felt as active elements in daily political 
life in countries where they may live. All Catholics should exert 
their power to cause the Constitutions of States to be modeled on 
the principles of the true church." 

Considering your answer to this question leads to the conclu- 
sion that Catholic laymen know very little of the "faith and prac- 
tices" of the Roman church, and what it demands of them, or that 
such faith and practices teach small regard for truth. 

Not only is the foregoing a command for Catholics to interfere, 
as such, with the politics of a land, but is their warrant to over- 
throw a government, if it takes that and it can be undertaken 
without danger to the church in the outcome. 

Do you wish to revise your answer to No. 6, so dogmatically 
made? 

No. 7: Does your church believe and teach that all men are 
free to worship God according to the dictates of their own con- 
science at all times and under all circumstances? 

Answer : Yes, so long as they are decent about it, and orderly. 

CRITICISM 

In qualifying your answer, you make it necessary for me to 
restate the proposition, using different phraseology: Represent- 
ing the Catholics of Georgia and speaking for them, please state 
who is to define whether or not they are "decent about it, and 
orderly" — the pope representing all his predecessors and various 
councils and "fathers" (Dens, Liguori, Loyola, Aquinas, etc.), or 
the chief of police representing the crystalized democratic will of 
the people? Observe well: if you answer, the pope, then your 
answer above is untrue, and you are a false exponent of the 
"faith and practices" of Catholicism; and if you say, the chief of 
police, it will be an admission that your church is wrong in its 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 29 

faith and practices; if you attempt to plead "expediency," you 
would place the Eternal, Unchanging God on the same plane as a 
ward-healing politician, as by inference your pope, Leo, taught, 
saying "the weaker power yields to the one which is stronger in 
human resources," p. 122. In Catholic Spain, where the Catholic 
church has a concordat with the State, Protestants cannot have 
a house of worship that can be recognized as such. "Expe- 
diency!" A refuge behind which "intention" hides! 

Pope Pius IX said : "The State has not the right to leave every 
man free to profess and embrace whatever religion he should 
deem true." (Prop. 15, Syllabus of Errors.) 

No. 8 : Do you and your church believe in free public schools, 
supported by the State, and free from the control of any church 
or religious organization, including your own? 

Answer : Yes, we help support them, without protest and wil- 
lingly. For ourselves we prefer parochial schools, in order to 
teach our children the faith of their fathers; but we recognize 
the necessity of public schools and we patronize them where we 
can not maintain our own. And we pay our portion of taxes to 
support them everywhere. 

CRITICISM 

You seem to base your affirmative answer on what you are 
doing, instead of what the church teaches, thus qualifying it, 
which may be termed expediency; otherwise I cannot understand 
how you can answer "yes." In "The Rights of Our Little Ones," 
p. 24, qu. 40, a Catechism printed by Benziger Bros., w;e quote: 

"Does education lie within the scope of civil authority? 

Answer: "Education does not lie within the scope of civil au- 
thority, wherefore the State cannot, without violating higher 
and holier rights, usurp the right and discharge the duty of 
educating the young." 

This makes your answer seem void of truth. Pius IX, Sylla- 
bus of Errors, says: "She (the church) has the right to deprive 
the civil authority of the entire government of the public 
schools." Leo XIII said Catholics should "endeavor that not only 
a suitable and solid method of education may nourish, but above 
all that this education be wholly in harmony with CATHOLIC 
FAITH in its literature and system of training ... to pro- 
vide with special care that all studies should accord with the 
CATHOLIC FAITH," p. 135. "As to public schools, it is well 
known to you that there is no ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHOR- 
ITY left in them," p. 167. (A source of sorrow to all true "chil- 
dren.") Also, that "they who would break away from Christian 
(papal) discipline are working to corrupt family life, and to de- 
stroy it utterly," p. 206. Catholics are admonished to "strain 
every nerve ... to hold exclusive authority to direct the 
education of their offspring." Your answer may be an honest 



30 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

wish of some individual Catholics — but we are not discussing 
individuals, but the SYSTEM and its DEMANDS according to 
its faith and practice. In the priest hand-book, sanctioned by 
Archbishop Quigley, in the confessional the priest must ask the 
penitent: "Do you send your children to Catholic schools?" 

Since the pope demands the right to control education, it may 
be interesting here to cite a few figures, showing what has been 
the uniform result of such control. The percentage of illiteracy 
in Roman Catholic Austria is 18, Bulgaria 65, France 14, Hun- 
gary 33, Italy 37, Portugal 58, Spain 58, Argentina 54, Bolivia 
82, Brazil 85, Chile 49, Mexico 70. The percentage of illiteracy in 
Protestant England and Wales 0.2, Switzerland 0.3, United 
States 8, Australia 2. For this wonderful and important differ- 
ence there is evidently a fundamental difference in the spirit 
and practice of Catholicism and Protestantism, not racial — and 
there is but one answer to this momentous question : The Roman 
Catholic Index; and many millions of Catholics in America, if 
true to their pope, would establish the principles of the Index to 
all America, in accordance with the aim of the Church of Rome, 
which is, as stated by Leo, to "GOVERN THE MINDS OF 
MEN," and if they are not true to the pope in this matter, they 
are not Catholics, but heretics, and are in the wrong aggrega- 
tion; but as Catholics, if they accept the Index themselves, they 
necessarily believe it should be universal in its application, as 
witness the efforts to muzzle the press, by Catholic Congressmen, 
preventing free speech, using mob violence and resorting to as- 
saults and murder — acts which have been frequent the past few 
years. 

The fruit from this tree, wherever it is permitted to fructify, 
has ever been the same — the amount of fruit it brings forth al- 
ways depends upon how strong it becomes in "human resources," 
which the pope construes as a "divine right" to "legislate, judge 
and punish" — and operate the Index. 

No. 9: Do you and the church you represent believe in the 
separation of Church and State? 

Answer: As applied in this country and secured under our 
constitution and laws, we do believe in the separation of Church 
and State. 

CRITICISM 

Your answer to this question is evasive and misleading. Your 
church teaches, and Catholics must believe, that the pope is 
Christ veiled in the flesh and that the Roman is the only church 
founded by Christ; to imply, as you do, that Christ varies His 
requirements, of faith and practice, to suit the times and places, 
would destroy His nature as Immutable God. Leo is competent 
authority — let him tell you what is the ''intention" of the church, 
which is the basis upon which every question must be answered 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 31 

(p. Ill) : "It is quite unlawful for the State ... to hold in 
equal favor different kinds of religion . . . (148) : Hence fol- 
lows that fatal theory of the need of separation between Church 
and State. . . . (161) : It is quite unlawful to demand, to de- 
fend, or to grant freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, or of 
WORSHIP." Being governed by expediency, your church may 
consider your answer valid; but "expediency" has nothing to do 
with what is the "INTENTION" of the church. The actuating 
desire and principle of your church is revealed in its intention; 
not by extraneous forces which it is not at present able to over- 
come. 

No. 11 : Should your church become dominant in America, and 
recognized as the religion of State, would you accord freedom of 
opinion, of press, of speech and of worship to all other denomi- 
nations, even when same actively oppose the Roman Catholic 
church? 

Answer : Catholics have no desire whatever that their religion 
be recognized as the religion of State in America. We are per- 
fectly satisfied, from the highest prelate to the lowest layman, 
with the rights guaranteed by our Constitution. And we would 
oppose any change looking to the recognition of any religion as 
the religion of State. It follows that we stand for that freedom 
of opinion, of press, of speech, of worship to all denominations 
that our Constitution and laws now provide for. 

CRITICISM 

Your answer is not in harmony with your popes. Leo XIII 
says (p. 358) : "Whosoever is separated from the (Roman) 
church is united to an adulteress," and that "justice forbids, and 
reason forbids, the State to be godless — namely, TO TREAT 
THE VARIOUS RELIGIONS . . . ALIKE and bestow upon 
them promiscuously EQUAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES," 
therefore the rulers of the State "MUST preserve and protect" 
the Catholic religion. To Cardinal Gibbons, Leo wrote (p. 323) : 
"For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and 
Government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, 
protected against violence by the common laws and the impar- 
tiality of your tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance. 
Yet, though all this be true, it would be very erroneous to draw 
the conclusion that in America is to be sought that most desirable 
status of the church, or that it would be universally lawful or 
expedient for Church and State to be, as in America, dissevered 
and divorced. . . . She would bring forth more abundant 
fruits if, IN ADDITION TO LIBERTY, she enjoyed the 
FAVOR of the LAWS and the patronage of the public author- 
ity," p. 323. Again he says (110) : "The STATE is clearly bound 
to . . . the public confession of religion," and that "it is a sin 
in the State not to care for religion." This is your infallible pope 
speaking on the "faith and practices" of Catholics, and you know 



32 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

as well as I, and I know as well as you, that unless you had a dis- 
pensation to make such answer as you rendered, you would be 
excommunicated ; if that be not true, and you were not authorized 
to answer as you did, it shows a woeful lack of knowledge on the 
part of those proposing to teach others what are the faith and 
practices of Catholics ! 

On the other hand, if you deny the pope the right to teach as 
cited above, which is in substance that the United States should 
enter into a concordat with the Vatican making the Roman the 
religion of State, as in Spain, by that very denial you are forced 
to admit the contention of Protestantism, that the pope is only a 
puny man like any other puny man; and that if he blunders in 
matters as important as this, everyone has the right to question 
any faith or practice promulgated by papalism — and to deny 
papal infallibility is to accept the principles of the Reformation, 
which throw the papal Index into the waste-basket, and the exer- 
cise of the brains God gave each individual, by which each must 
"work out his own salvation." * 

No. 12: If you answer in the affirmative (Question 11), please 
state what you would do if the pope should command that such 
toleration be not granted. 

Answer: In the event you imagine, were it possible for it to 
come about, we would treat the pope's command as a usurpation 

* Since submitting the above Criticism to Mr. Farrell, I have secured a copy 
of a Roman Catholic school text-book, the "Manual of Christian Doctrine," 
published in Philadelphia in 1919, which is a standard text-book to be used 
in "classes of high schools, academies and colleges." The object of the book 
is stated in the Preface : "For the pupil the present volume is sufficiently 
complete to impart that knowledge of religion . . . that he may be able to 
exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayer." It was issued ac- 
cording to the Rules of the Index, bearing the Imprimatur of "D. J. Dougherty, 
Archiepiscopus Philadelphiensis." On the subject of "Union of Church and 
State" page 132, we find the following questions and answers : 

"117. What more should the State do than respect the rights and the liberty 
of the Church? 

"The State should also aid, protect, and defend the Church. 

"119. What then is the principal obligation of heads of States? 

"Their principal obligation is to practice the Catholic religion themselves, 
and, as they are in power, to protect and defend it. 

"120. Has the State the right and the duty to proscribe schism or heresy? 

"Yes, it has the right and the duty to do so for the good of the nation, and 
for that of the faithful themselves ; . . . 

("Proscribe" means to utterly destroy, extirpate, kill out.) 

"122. MAY THE STATE SEPARATE ITSELF FROM THE CHURCH? 

"NO, BECAUSE IT MAY NOT WITHDRAW FROM THE SUPREME RULE 
OF CHRIST. 

"123. What name is given to the doctrine that the State has neither the 
right nor the duty to be united to the Church to protect it? 

"This doctrine is called Liberalism. It is founded principally on the fact 
that modern society rests on liberty of conscience and of worship, on liberty 
of speech and of the press. 

"124. Why is Liberalism to be condemned? 

"1. Because it denies all subordination of the State to the Church. 2. Be- 
cause it confounds liberty with right; ..." 

The difference between the teaching of the Laymen's Association and the 
school-book is remarkable; the Association was "teaching" a "heretic," the 
text-book is for the "faithful." 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 33 

of our rights as American citizens to conduct our National affairs 
in such manner as we might think just and right. The pope has 
no authority to interfere in matters of politics or in the right ad- 
ministration of our civic affairs, and if he should, we would pay 
no attention to him. 

COMMENT 

As an answer from an individual you may have replied in all 
truth and sincerity, but answering as you do for the Catholics of 
Georgia, I question the veracity of this answer. I very clearly 
stated previously, answers were to be made as to what the church 
taught, and not what individuals may desire, or wish, it taught. 

My comments on Answer 11 apply to this with equal force, 
supplemented by the following facts: All concordats between 
the Vatican and States provide, among other things, for the 
teaching of the Catholic religion to the young in the schools, by 
Catholic teachers exclusively, establishing the rule of the Lndex, 
which shuts out all knowledge on the part of the laymen of the 
laws, dogmas and history of the Roman church; its "intention," 
which in the course of time naturally results in having all laws 
of the land modeled after the laws of the Roman church, and 
hence, in all things political the church becomes dominant, and 
can then exercise her right as a "perfect society" to "legislate, 
judge and punish" and force all men to bow to the AUTHORITY 
OF THE POPE. So, while you say you would reject the pope's 
interference with "civic" affairs, you accept all those require- 
ments of faith and practice which are used as means to obtain 
the condition Leo so ardently craved — civil domination. To illus- 
trate: one means to this end is to make marriage a sacrament; 
children are then born into the church and kept there by the 
Index. This is proved by the fact that when priests of Rome 
officiate at mixed marriages, the non-Catholic party must sign an 
agreement to the effect that all children from that union are to 
be brought up in the Catholic faith without objection on the part 
of the non-Catholic. 

You say, however, that you would not allow the pope to inter- 
fere with civil matters in America. There are something like 
17,000,000 Roman Catholics in America — they allowed the pope 
to interfere with the civic affairs in the enforcement of the Ne 
Temere decree; acting solely on the authority of the pope, your 
bishop refused to obey the laws of the State of Georgia. Yet, 
and notwithstanding all this, you say in one instance you would 
pay no attention to the pope, yet in others prove your allegiance. 

You know that the Roman church must have political domina- 
tion before she can establish religious domination; and that 
either the members are absolutely ignorant of the "intention" of 
their church, which may be classed as a crime against them on 
the part of the church, or that they know such intention and 



34 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

fully concur in it, which may prove a crime against mankind, 
if ever the church secures domination. I cite you to the history 
of the Inquisition and the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, to eluci- 
date my meaning. 

No. 13 : Does the Roman church, impliedly or otherwise, teach 
that (1) the church has the right to employ force, (2) that non- 
Catholics ought to be harmed either in business or in person, (3) 
that the church has the right to remove heretics from the earth 
by death? 

Answer: (1) NO. (2) NO. (3) NO. 

CRITICISM 

To the three sub-divisions of this question, you answer "NO," 
very emphatically. There is a wide gulf between what you lay- 
men say, circumscribed as you are by the Index, and what the 
church through its popes says, in regard to this question. 

I quote copiously from Leo XIII, he being a recent pope, being 
in the "chair" of Peter when Bishop Keiley was "consecrated." 

Quoting from The Great Encyclical Letters of this pope: On 
p. 154, he says the church "is therefore the greatest and most 
reliable teacher of mankind, and in HER dwells an inviolable 
right to teach them . . . she has never ceased to assert her 
liberty of teaching. . . . It is plainly the duty of those who 
teach to banish error from the mind, and by SURE safeguards" 
(like the Index, I suppose) "to CLOSE THE ENTRY to all 
false convictions;" that "the Catholic church is a society char- 
tered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to 
possess in itself and by itself . . all needful provision for its 
maintenance and action," p. 112. "The church, therefore, pos- 
sesses the right to exist and to protect herself by institutions and 
laws in accordance with her nature," p. 106. That the authority 
of the church "is the most exalted of all authority, nor can it be 
looked upon as inferior to the civil power, nor in any manner 
dependent upon it. . . . Jesus gave . . . power of making 
laws, as also . . . the twofold right of judging and punishing t 
which flow from that power," 113, but be bewails the fact that 
some "despoil her of the nature and right of a PERFECT SO- 
CIETY, and MAINTAIN that it DOES NOT belong to HER to 
legislate, to judge or to punish," 160. 

Now, then, it is essential to its existence that a PERFECT 
SOCIETY have the right to LEGISLATE, JUDGE and PUN- 
ISH. These are the rights claimed and exercised by the several 
States of the United States, and the State, in maintaining these 
rights, will use FORCE, do HARM, and execute the DEATH 
penalty. 

Considering the Roman church a "perfect society," with the 
same rights exercised by the State, in his Syllabus of Errors, 
Prop. 24, Pope Pius IX authorized the definition of Leo XIII, 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 35 

declaring: "It (the State) has not the right to deny $o the 
church the use of FORCE, or to deny to her the possession of 
either a direct or indirect temporal power." This nails your 
answer to (1) as false, and also destroys your idea that the Rom- 
an Pontiff claims to govern his "children" in spiritual matters 
only. 

Now, for (2) — Leo XIII says: "Now truth" is the basis on 
which rests "morality, justice, religion ... to allow people to 
go UNHARMED who violate it would be MOST IMPIOUS, 
MOST FOOLISH and MOST INHUMAN," p. 153. This applies 
to every person in America who refuses to bend the knee and 
intellect to papal authority — if this is not Catholic doctrine in 
America, it is not in Spain ; if this is not the attitude of Catholics 
to non-Catholics in Georgia, it is not in Austria; if Catholics in 
Georgia do not subscribe to that doctrine, they cannot convince 
non-Catholics of sincerity as long as they remain members of an 
association or society or church that demands what they know to 
be wrong. It is as obligatory on the part of Catholics to believe 
this, in order to be saved, as it is to believe in papal infallibility, 
the Real Presence, ad infinitum. So this establishes the fact that 
in their "faith and practices" Catholics are taught by their 
church to HARM those who do not agree with that church. 

As to your answer to division (3) — Leo says: "Thomas 
Aquinas ... is rightly and deservedly esteemed the special 

bulwark of the Catholic faith Let carefully selected 

teachers implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds 
of students. . . . Let the academies already founded by you 
illustrate and defend this doctrine," p. 56. I will now let another 
theologian of your church tell you what, among other doctrines, 
"Saint" Thomas, the "Angelic Doctor," teaches. Peter Dens 
asks the question: "Are heretics rightly punished with death?" 
and answers thus: "St. Thomas (Aquinas) answers (2, 2. Ques. 
XI, art. 3 in corp.) Yes, because forgers of money, or other dis- 
turbers of the State, are justly punished with death; therefore 
also heretics, who are forgers of the faith, and experience being 
the witness, grievously disturb the State." 

In his letter to Cardinal Gibbons, Leo XIII admonished 
(p. 415) : "Lastly, NOT TO DELAY TOO LONG, it is also 
maintained that the WAY and the METHOD which CATHO- 
LICS have followed thus far for recalling those who differ from 
us is to be abandoned and another resorted to. In THAT matter, 
it suffices to advert that it is NOT prudent, Beloved Son, to 
NEGLECT WHAT ANTIQUITY, with its LONG EXPERI- 
ENCE, guided as it is by APOSTOLIC TEACHING, has 
STAMPED WITH ITS APPROVAL," p. 451. 

(Note. — In Comments on letter of Oct. 3, 1917, will be found 
the "method" Gibbons means, as decreed by Pope Innocent III, 
which is also embodied in the bishop's oath.) 



36 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

The above completely refutes your answers to the three sub- 
divisions of Question 13, and demonstrates that Catholic laymen 
know nothing about the real teaching of the Roman Catholic 
church — at least proving that they are incompetent to enlighten 
inquirers as to their "faith and practices." 

No. 14: Does the Roman Catholic church claim the right to 
control education? If so, name one country where the church 
has been in control for centuries where the percentage of illit- 
eracy is as small as it is in any Protestant country. 

Answer : The church has the right to teach all religious truths. 
The second part of this question is based on a misconception. 
The church has not been in control of any country in the world 
neither for centuries nor for a century nor for any length of time. 
The percentage of illiteracy in countries where the majority of 
the people is Catholic compares favorably with that where the 
majority of the people is non-Catholic. As proof of this, we can 
begin right at home. The percentage of illiteracy in the United 
States is most in those States where there are fewest Catholics- 
North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi and Alabama, for 
example. We do not say, however, that this is because there are 
more Protestants than Catholics in these States. We know that 
there are several reasons that fully explain the backwardness of 
those States along educational lines. Similar reasons prevail in 
regard to countries as in regard to States. Of course, you know 
that the first schools, the first colleges, the first universities on 
the American continent were started by Catholics. You doubt- 
less know that the first free schools of modern times, practically 
every university of Europe, the very systems of education in 
vogue throughout the civilized world, originated with Catholics. 

CRITICISM 
To this question, you say the church "claims no other right in 
matters of education," but admit that it claims the right "to 
teach all religious truths." Now, if the church has the right "to 
teach all religious truths," you must concede the right to control 
education, otherwise the first claim is vitiated,, for it would be as 
a king without a kingdom. But your answer is flatly contra- 
dicted by your church: Pope Pius IX, in Syllabus of Errors 
(Prop. 45), states the true doctrine of the Church of Rome in 
regard to education: "She (the church) has the right to de- 
prive the civil authority of the entire government of public 
schools." He was followed by Leo XIII, who commanded that 
"not only a suitable and solid method of EDUCATION may 
flourish, but ABOVE ALL that this EDUCATION be wholly in 
harmony with the Catholic faith in its LITERATURE AND 
SYSTEM OF TRAINING ... the training of youth most 
conducive to the defense of true faith and religion ... as for 
public schools .... there is no -ECCLESIASTICAL AU- 
THORITY in them," p. 206. It is then incumbent upon "parents 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 37 

to strain every nerve ... to strive manfully ... to direct 
the education of their offspring ... to keep them away from 
schools where there is a risk of their drinking in the poison of 
impiety." * So, where "expediency" renders it possible, Catholic 
parents must send their children to Catholic schools so that the 
church CAN CONTROL EDUCATION I They must not go to 
public schools where they may drink in impiety — or learn to 
read Roman Catholic history, canon law, and moral theology. 

As far as possible the Roman church in America is acting on 
the doctrine of Pius IX, depriving the State of the entire edu- 
cation of Catholic children, and putting it under the control of 
the church; to control education is to control the State; so this 
fact alone destroys that part of your answer denying that the 
church has been in control at any time, anywhere. The Roman 
Catholic church was the religion of State in practically all Latin 
countries up to about the middle of the last century, just as it is 
the religion of State in Spain, in Austria; Ferrer was shot a few 
years ago for advocating a free, progressive public school system 
for Spain. Is there a "public" school in Spain to-day for the 
education of youth where the Catholic catechism is not taught? 
Is there one of such "public" schools employing a Protestant 
teacher? Do you not know enough about your own church to 
know that a concordat MUST provide for church-control of edu- 
cation, as a necessary means of MAINTAINING a concordat? 
And what is Spain's record? Sixty-five per cent, illiterate, after 
a thousand years of church-control of education, while America's 
total is about eight per cent! Your church could not claim to be 
a "perfect society" within itself with the right to "legislate, 
judge and punish," and omit to control education; that omission 
would, first, destroy her claim of being a "perfect society," and, 
second, as experience has shown, prove fatal to Catholicism not 
to control education. In exercising her right to "legislate," the 
first law Rome makes, where she can, is to "legislate" all children 
into the parochial school, just as she has the Catholic children in 
America. 

In the next part of your answer you seem to evade the issue. 
True, there are several Southern States in this Union where the 
percentage of illiteracy is greater than in others; but even in 
those States where there are more negroes and poor white people, 
the percentage is smaller to-day than that in Catholic countries 
where the Church of Rome is supposed to make a specialty of 
educating, as part of its "charter" rights; but, taking America 
as a whole, her illiteracy is smaller, with all her foreigners and 



* Note — The kind of school and education the Roman church demands, and 
which Leo XIII had in mind, is the parochial school, in charge of Roman 
priests, where the un-American doctrines are taught such as are quoted from 
time to time in these pages from the "Manual of Christian Doctrine." 



38 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

negroes, than any Catholic state, while the percentage of illiter- 
ates among her native-born white is about 2 per cent. 

The report of ex-President William Howard Taft, chairman of 
the Commission appointed by President McKinley to investigate 
the source of trouble in the Philippine Islands, reveals, under 
sworn testimony, that the Roman church rule in the islands was 
absolute — religiously and politically — covering a period of ap- 
proximately 300 years; and with over a thousand different 
priests of the church there, they could not boast of over 6,000 
"educated" people. If a horse, dog, cat, flea, etc., can be edu- 
cated to where it displays almost human-like reason, that is suffi- 
cient evidence that race nor clime is a bar to "education." If 
you say that the Latin races are intellectually inferior to other 
races as a reason for their greater illiteracy where Roman 
Catholicism is dominant, then you admit that Catholicism is not 
the only true religion of Jesus Christ; and if you do not infer 
that they are inferior, you must admit that the Catholic church 
has been recreant to her trust. 

No. 15 : Are Roman Catholics taught that the civil authority 
ought to be subordinate to ecclesiastical authority? 
Answer : NO. 

CRITICISM 

From the various answers noted prior to this, I am not sur- 
prised to discover that in this you are also disagreeing with the 
teaching church. You answer "NO," while Pope Pius says the 
church "has the right to claim dominion in temporal things for 
the clergy and the pope," Prop. 27, and Leo XIII said "We . . . 
renew and confirm in every particular . . . those declarations 
and protests which Pope Pius . . . published o.gainst seizing of 
the CIVIL sovereignty and the infringement of rights belonging 
to the Roman church," p. 68. While Catholics in America let the 
church enforce the Ne Temere decree, in Italy, the home of the 
popes, Catholic Italians passed a law making it a penal offense 
for a priest of the church to perform a marriage ceremony ! Leo 
says: "Marriage ought not to be regulated and administered by 
the will of civil rulers . . . but ... by authority of the church; 
it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest 
fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler . . 
the Pontiff was thrust out . . of his right, the civil princedom;" 
the authority of the church "is the most exalted of all authority," 
is not "inferior to the civil power, nor in any manner dependent 
upon it," and that the church has "true power of making laws, 
as also the twofold right of judging and punishing," and, hence, 
naturally, where this authority of the church is not accorded this 
eminence over civil authority, then "it is lawful to seek for a 
change of government as will bring about due liberty of action" 
to the church. He further teaches 17,000,000 Catholics in America 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 39 

that "It is a high crime . . . under pretext of keeping the civil 
law, to ignore the rights of the church," p. 184. He is yet more 
emphatic, declaring: "If the laws of the State are manifestly at 
variance with divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the 
church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed 
by religion, or if they violate in the person of the Supreme Pon- 
tiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes 
a positive duty; to obey, a crime," 185. 

No. 16: Do you think there is any persecution of Catholics in 
this country, and if so, on what grounds and by whom: do you 
think it is being carried on? 

Answer: There can be no doubt of the fact that there is a 
systematic campaign of villification and slander being carried on 
against the Catholic church and her people in this country. It is 
being conducted by two classes of persons ; first, those who work 
it for the sake of the financial returns it brings them in the 
way of subscriptions and donations, and second, those who aim 
to destroy all religion and are merely attacking the Catholic 
church as being the oldest and most vigorous exponent of Chris- 
tianity. 

CRITICISM 

The object of this question was to ascertain if you really be- 
lieve, as you say in your "Plea for Peace," by inference, at least, 
that Catholics and non-Catholics "are of the same flesh, with the 
same feelings, the same nature," etc., and to ascertain, first-hand, 
if Catholics think the principles of Protestantism* are merely 
academic, or if they believe such rights and principles are as 
vital and dear to non-Catholics as Catholicism is to Catholics. 
The answer you gave would be all one could expect from a person 
well drilled only in the Catechism; but it is not such as is ex- 
pected from one who is supposed to be so well versed as to invite 
questions relative to faith and practices and rights of Catholics 
as taught by the Roman church ; a broad vision would survey the 
whole field of controversy, and the following would be manifest: 

Practically all non-Catholics know, in a general, vague way, 
from the decrees of the church, that the Roman church is the 
relentless foe of every principle of Protestantism and the Refor- 
mation and constitutional civil government; that it has and will 
make use of every means to gain ascendency as expdiency or 
safety may determine — an assertion easily verified by all who are 
not hampered in their investigations by the Index; that Catholi- 
cism is opposed, because some think it seeks to foist upon the 
human race a world-wide monarchy; opposed by others as being 
the anti-Christ; still others, not a few, who believe it to be a 
gigantic scheme to aggrandize a few at the expense of all the 
rest, while still many more, who believe it to be an apostate from 
the true faith. All this, I repeat, would be seen by a broad vision, 



40 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

and the different reasons assigned would be found resting upon 
the history of that church. 

From your answer, "ecclesiastical" history is a subject not 
open to investigation by Catholics; it makes no allowance for 
honest difference of opinion, and evidences you do not believe we 
are all essentially alike, but that Catholics, being flesh and blood, 
can strike at what the church directs and wills, while non- 
Catholics, being made of some India-rubber like substance, must 
bound away when hit. 

The Roman church in America has evidently mistaken the leni- 
ence and tolerance of Protestantism for ignorance of the "inten- 
tion" of the church, indifference or fear. The natural inference 
from your answer is, that the Roman church does not even credit 
non-Catholics with ordinary intelligence, if she thinks they will 
pursue the even tenor of their way while the Catholic forces are 
"mobilized" before their very eyes, under the leadership of 
Jesuits — natural foes of every principle they value — a force 
whose "chief preoccupation is how best to serve the interests of 
Catholicism," and whose very existence as an order depends upon 
adherence to the principles and purposes for which it was re- 
chartered, that is, the "intention" of the church to destroy con- 
stitutional government and Protestantism, control education and 
bring the world under subjection to the Roman Pontiff, soul and 
body, as each member thereof is to the Jesuit General. 

To those who study history, the nature of the claims of the 
Roman church, the "intention" of that institution, and compare 
all of it with sectional and international contemporaneous events, 
this mustering all Catholics into a compact body is a challenge, 
at present, for a test of political strength. 

The summary manner in which you dismissed this question 
seems to indicate you realized its important bearing on the anti- 
papal activities. 

No. 17: Do you and your church recognize any other church 
as "Christian"? Has any pope ever so declared? 

Answer: The Catholic church does not recognize any other 
church as having been founded by Christ. Christ established 
but one church. Our church teaches, and we Catholics believe, 
that the Catholic church is that church. 

CRITICISM 

This answer is very human, in part. It is natural for one to 
believe what he has is the best; so long as this opinion goes no 
further, there is no objection. But there is ample evidence tend- 
ing to show that the Roman church is not satisfied to set up a 
claim monopolizing only the spiritual kingdom and contend for 
such with the Sword of the Spirit, but, in imitation of temporal 
powers, wields carnal weapons, to invade and subjugate other 
kingdoms. It is by comparison and argument that the superi- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 41 

ority of one proposition over another is manifested to reasoning 
beings; and that you may understand why many people are not 
willing to have the church exercise her "rights" in America, I 
will submit here a few figures showing conditions as they were 
found in places where the Roman Catholic, "true" religion, has 
been, and is yet, in the ascendancy. The number of murders to 
every million inhabitants in Catholic Ireland was 19, Belgium 18, 
France 31, Austria 36, Bavaria 68, Sardinia 20, Lombardy 45, 
Tuscany 56, Sicily 90, Naples 174; while Protestant England had 
only 4 to the million. 

Percentage of illegitimate births: In Catholic Paris 33, Brus- 
sels 35, Munich 48, Vienna 51 ; Protestant England 4. 

Further, the percentage in Protestant cities (as compared with 
Catholic cities of equal population) were: Bristol and Clifton 6, 
Manchester and Salford 7, Plymouth 5, Bradford and Birming- 
ham 6, Brighton 7, Cheltingham 7, Exeter 8, Liverpool 6, Port- 
sea 5; while Catholic Austria's cities showed: Troppan 26, Zara 
30, Innspruck 22, Laibach 47, Klagenfurt 56, Gratz 65. 

The Vienna, Austria, Year-Book for 1905, gives 16,867 illegiti- 
mates to 38,847 legitimates. The criminal statistics for Germany 
in 1914 gave Catholics about 50 per cent, above non-Catholics. It 
is the object of your church, according to Leo XIII, to "GOV- 
ERN THE MINDS OF MEN." The above figures give some idea 
what results where this has been accomplished — the inevitable 
fruit where the Catholic Index is supreme, and it becomes su- 
preme wherever there are enough Catholics and priests to put it 
into effect. 

Do not understand me as intimating, even, that there are no 
good people in the Catholic church ; far be it from me. I believe 
there are, and have been, good people in jail. 

No. 18: In case of conflict between the laws of your church 
and the laws of the State, which are you in duty bound to obey, 
as a matter of religious conscience? 

Answer : In case of the conflict you imagine, either the church 
authorities would be exceeding their just powers, or the State au- 
thorities would be exceeding their just powers, and it would be 
the duty of every man, Catholic or not Catholic, in such a case, 
to determine for himself as a matter of conscience which of these 
authorities was the usurper and firmly to stand for the other. 

CRITICISM 

Your answer here is neither democratic nor Catholic, but de- 
structive of both theories of government which, if followed to its 
logical conclusion, in practice, would be the reign of anarchy — 
every man becoming his own judge, jury and executioner. Under 
democracy, the power to make laws is vested in the people; and 
any law, therefore, generally speaking, that is endorsed by the 
majority of the people, is equally binding on all who elect to re- 



42 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

side where this form of government obtains, although Leo XIII 
says this "is in contradiction of reason," p. 145. A stable gov- 
ernment could not be established upon your theory; religious 
and moral questions cover every phase of human existence; all 
law is for the purpose of establishing a code defining what is 
moral, especially in our country where the power to set up a 
criterion is vested in the people. 

Your theory destroys Catholicism, and is the bedrock of Protes- 
tantism. For one to determine for himself whether or not a law is 
usurpation, such person must, essentially, have an individuality 
of both mind and conscience unfettered, to enable him to "think" 
and "choose," principles which are absolutely prohibited by the 
Roman church, and if Catholics in America practice these prin- 
ciples in any degree, it is because of the presence of Protestant 
principles, which forces the church, as a matter of expediency, to 
wink at their violation for the present, just as she winked at civil 
marriage until 1908, and permitted Catholics to marry according 
to civil law. 

Your church makes no provision for the individual exercise of 
conscience, therefore, a Catholic must be governed by AUTHOR- 
ITY of the church vested in the priest, who will define what is or 
is not to be considered usurpation; Leo XIII, p. 189, says: "It 
belongs above all to the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ, to 
teach all that pertains to morals and faith," and that "freedom 
of thinking and openly making known one's thoughts is not in- 
herent in the rights of citizens," 126, but declares that "the lib- 
erty of thinking ... is the fountain head and origin of many 
evils," 123. 

If you think your answer is in accord with your faith and 
practices, support it with decrees of a pope or general church 
council; no other citation will be competent. 

(Addendum Note — The Protestantant principle above alluded 
to is in the sense that Protestants think, choose and decide for 
themselves, and support or oppose given legislation; but after it 
becomes law, are obdeient to it.) 

No. 19 : If it be true that a large percentage of your fellow- 
citizens fear the alleged intention of the Vatican to make the 
Roman Catholic church dominant in the political affairs of this 
country; to suppress Freemasonry and secret orders generally; 
to control the press; to abridge freedom of speech; to prevent 
religious toleration of other sects, churches or creeds, and to con- 
trol the public school system or destroy it, would you be willing, 
in order to dissipate such ideas, to declare, openly, without 
mental reservation or equivocation, on your honor as American 
citizens, that if such be the intention or purpose of the Vatican 
or pope, or any part of the clergy, or laity of your church, you 
would resist the execution of such designs to the uttermost and 
join your fellow-citizens in repudiating such attempts? 

Answer : Yes. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 43 

criticism 

To this question, you answer "Yes." I cannot make it har- 
monize with your answer to Question 4 : Freemasonry is a living 
exponent of all those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of 
the United States, many of which are embodied in this question; 
it supports free speech, free press, free conscience and non-secta- 
rian free public school system — in other words, Masonry cham- 
pions everything that Jesuitism seeks to destroy — and Jesuitism 
exists only to work against every principle of the Constitution 
mentioned in this question, and if Jesuits are maintained and 
supported in America by Catholics, they themselves are partici- 
pants of the work of Jesuits and other priestly orders, all of 
whom have assumed an oath of obedience to the pope, and you 
will not say the pope would concur in your answer to No. 19. If 
to Catholics the pope "Holds upon this earth the place of God 
Almighty," they cannot agree with him in the desire to "extir- 
pate" Freemasonry without agreeing also with his will to destroy 
all those principles which Freemasonry stands for. 

Are you laymen really full-fledged Catholics? Are you not 
taking particular pains to keep your literature out of the hands 
of the "faithful"? I infer you are directing your efforts exclu- 
sively among non-Catholics, as you do not use an authenticating 
"imprimatur" on your printed matter. 

In a republic, the power to make law being vested in the peo- 
ple, free speech and free press are as essential to its existence 
as air and water to the human system. As you are supposed to 
be answering for Catholics of Georgia, will state that Macon is 
in Georgia — the Catholics of Macon, in the year 1917, exerted 
every effort except display of violence to prevent free speech; in 
Alabama and Florida, the same; also in other sections of this 
country, adding mob violence to their efforts of persuasion: the 
priesthood of the Roman church opposes free speech, because it 
is a violation of the law of their church — not so much for what 
may be said; while Catholic laymen endeavor in many ways to 
prevent the exercise of this right, acting solely on the AU- 
THORITY of the priest, because the Index prevents them from 
knowing whether or not speakers are telling the truth or falsi- 
fying.* 



* Since submitting the above criticism I have discovered, in the Catholic 
Catechism, that Romanists are taught that one becomes answerable for the 
sins of another in NINE different ways, one of which is "BY SILENCE;" 
that is, if they know of a "sin" being committed, or to be committed, and are 
SILENT, they become as guilty as the one who commits the sin ; this accounts 
for the efforts on the part of Catholics to close halls against lecturers, mob 
violence, murder, and either boycott a person's business or resort to slander, 
to ruin both his name and business. According to laws of the Roman church, 
every principle of the United States Constitution — free speech, free press, free 
school, free conscience, separation of Church and State, etc., are sins against 
god the pope and a Roman Catholic is in CONSCIENCE BOUND to use any 
means to prevent another from sinning against the pope's church, or himself 



44 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

No. 20: If you answer that you would (referring to Question 
19), please state in what way or manner such information could 
be brought to your careful, conscientious attention for considera- 
tion — if you could investigate such questions independently of 
your priest? 

Answer : Those who claim to be in possession of such informa- 
tion must themselves find some respectful way of bringing it to 
the attention of others. Of course, we can investigate such ques- 
tions, if at all, independently of our priest. There is no question 
of any sort open to investigation that we are not as free to in- 
vestigate as any other persons. 

CRITICISM 

The first part of your answer here presents a problem, and a 
puzzle: according to the teaching of the church, the only way to 
bring any question before a Roman Catholic in a "respectful" 
manner is to send it through the Index via the local priest; Leo 
XIII positively lays down the rule by which Catholics are to be 
governed in such matters : "It is plainly the duty of all who teach 
to banish error from the mind, and by SURE SAFEGUARDS to 
CLOSE the ENTRY to all false convictions," p. 153, and as the 
Roman Pontiff is the supreme teacher of all truth, the church 
places the Index across the entrance to Catholic minds, which 
forbids them to read any book "which defends errors proscribed 
by the Holy See," p. 414; that "censors . . . must keep before 
their eyes nothing but the dogmas of holy church, and the 
common Catholic doctrine as contained in the decrees of General 
Councils, the Constitutions of Roman Pontiffs, and the unani- 
mous teaching of the Doctors of the Church," p. 419. Under the 
operation of this law of your church, no production from master 
minds of any country or age, explaining or defending the funda- 
mental principles of FREEDOM, which underly the Constitution 
of the United States, nor any other vital question based upon 

be answerable for it. THIS IS A DANGEROUS DOCTRINE, and will forever 
remain a disturbing factor until the pope or the Constitution becomes supreme. 

Observe, that to Question 19, the Association answered "Yes," which is in 
direct conflict with what is taught Catholics in their own schools, from text- 
books duly authorized by the Roman church. From the "Manual of Christian 
Doctrine," a Catholic school text-book, published in Philadelphia, 1919, with 
the imprimatur of Archbishop D. J. Dougherty, I quote the following from 
page 132, under the heading, "Union of Church and State" : 

Question : "119. What, then, is the principal obligation of heads of States? 

Answer : "Their principal obligation is to practice the Catholic religion 
themselves, and, as they are in power, to protect and defend it. 

"120. Has the State the right and the duy to proscribe schism or heresy? 

"Yes, it has the right and the duty to do so both for the good of the nation 
and for that of the faithful themselves ; for religious unity is the principal 
foundation of social unity. 

"122. May the State separate itself from the Church? 

"No, because it may not withdraw from the supreme rule of Christ." 

The pope, Vatican, clergy and laity are teaching and accepting this doctrine, 
in America — it destroys every proposition involved in Question 19, and com- 
pletely proves the answer "Yes" above to be untrue ! — and Farrell knew it, 
at the time. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 45 

religion or morality, can be "respectfully" brought to the atten- 
tion of Catholics. (This seems to account for the general deca- 
dence of Latin countries, and why Catholics as a rule take no 
part in civic or reform measures.) 

If your Association will indicate how the Index can be "re- 
spectfully" eliminated, you will confer a favor; also explain why 
your Association had to get a permit or "dispensation" from, the 
local priest or the bishop before engaging in your present work. 
Leo XIII says, ex cathedra, that ALL Catholics "are bound to 
submit to preliminary ecclesiastical (i. e., priest) censorship at 
least those books which treat of Holy Scripture, ecclesiastical his- 
tory, canon law, natural theology, ethics, and other religious or 
moral subjects of this character; and in general ALL writings 
especially concerned with religion and morality," p. 419. This 
LAW denies Catholics the right to investigate AT ALL inde- 
pendently of priest-censorship any question covered by the Index 
— and insofar as the church and its faith and practices are con- 
cerned, any question of vital importance. 

Can you eliminate the words "if at all" and "open to investiga- 
tion" from this answer? If not, why not? Why such apparent 
effort to conceal facts relative to your faith and practices, after 
yourself inviting questions? 

Please give the name and address of JUST ONE Catholic lay- 
man in the whole State of Georgia who possesses an uncensored 
history of the lives of the popes, or history of the convents ; can 
you name five Catholic laymen in the State who know that a 
number of the popes were very immoral men, being fathers of 
children, and that an illegitimate son of a pope was himself 
made pope? Can Catholics investigate such questions AT ALL? 
Are they "open" to investigation? If not, why? 

No. 21 : The Jesuit order was abolished in 1769, by Pope Clem- 
ent XIV; they have been excluded from almost every civilized 
country many times ; are not permitted even now to enter Roman 
Catholic Spain, although another pope lifted the ban from the 
order. Please state why the order (a) was abolished, (b) barred 
from other countries, (c) kept out of Spain now, (d) how one 
pope can "abolish and forever destroy the Society of Jesus" and 
another re-establish it. 

Answer: The Jesuit order was abolished as a matter of in- 
ternal church policy. It is barred from some countries, and in 
some countries from some dioceses, for the same reason. Every 
society within the church, Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, etc., 
exists by consent of the Head of the Church and can be suspended, 
abolished, reinstated, or created anew as the Roman Pontiff may 
deem necessary. They may enter this diocese or that or be ex- 
cluded from one or the other as the bishop of the diocese may 
deem to the best interest of the church in that jurisdiction. In 
some dioceses only one or two orders are permitted charges, in 



46 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

others more, in some all may have charges. The whole matter is 
a question of internal church policy. 

CRITICISM 

Your answer to this question is a convergence of paradox- 
ology. You say that the Jesuit order was abolished "as a matter 
of internal church policy;" that it was kept out of "some coun- 
tries . . and some dioceses for the same reason." Perhaps you 
misunderstood the question; I did not ask as to restrictions 
involving local internal "church" policy. Since you do not 
answer sub-divisions of the main question, I shall ask you to 
state if the following is not true: 

The Jesuit order was established by Paul III, in 1540, and 
abolished in 1769, and more than half of this time was in open 
resistance to the authority of the pope and the church, and 
that the matter of abolishing this order was a perplexing prob- 
lem for many popes. 

In issuing the decree of abolishment, Clement XIV assigned 
in part the following reasons, eleven popes "employed, without 
effect, all their effort," to overcome the evils created by the 
order; that they were guilty of "idolatrous ceremonies'' and 
that the kings of France, Spain, Portugal and Sicily "found 
themselves reduced to the necessity of expelling and driving from 
their states, kingdoms and provinces these very champions of 
Jesus" because "there remained no other remedy for so great 
evils," and that "this step was necessary in order to prevent 
the Christians from rising one against the other and massacre- 
ing each other in the very bosom of our common mother, the 
Holy Catholic church," and that in the church there could 
never be "a firm and durable peace so long as the said Society 
subsisted," issuing an order that it be "ABSOLUTELY ABOL- 
ISHED and SUPPRESSED . . . Our will and pleasure is, that 
these, Our Letters should FOREVER and to ALL ETERNITY 
be valid, PERMANENT, and efficacious." Now, then, it is true, 
that the principle of "internal church policy" was involved in 
the abolishment of the order, and is correct as to sub-division (a) 
of the question, but is not correct as answering (b) and (c). 

If the following facts of history are not correctly stated, 
please show error: 

As to (b) : The king of Portugal "issued a decree of ban- 
ishment against the Jesuits as traitors, rebels, enemies to, and 
aggressors on, his person, his states, and the public peace and 
general good of the people." (Cormenin.) The French Parlia- 
ment, composed exclusively of Catholics, decreed banishment 
of the Jesuits, denouncing their doctrines and practices "as 
perverse, destructive of every principle of religion, and even of 
probity; as injurious to Christian morality, pernicious to civil 
society, seditious, dangerous to the rights of the nation, the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 47 

nature of the royal power, and the safety of the persons of 
sovereigns; as fit to excite the greatest trouble in States, to 
form and maintain the most profound corruption in the hearts 
of men," and provided that "the institution of the Jesuits should 
forever cease to exist throughout the whole extent of the king- 
dom." Following Portugal and France, the King of Spain, 
head of one of the strongest Catholic States, banished the Jes- 
uits from his kingdom, as also the King of the Two Sicilies, and 
Ferdinand, Duke of Parma and Placenia, as a matter of INTER- 
NAL STATE POLICY. 

When the order was abolished by the church, the Jesuits 
found refuge in Russia. There they enjoyed every freedom, and 
were teaching in the schools. In expelling them from that coun- 
try, Alexander said they had "abused the confidence which was 
placed in them:" while enjoying toleration themselves "they 
planted a hard intolerance in the natures infatuated by them;" 
that "all their efforts were directed merely to secure advantages 
for themselves," and after making other serious charges, asks, 
"Where, in fact, is the State that would tolerate in its bosom 
those who sow in it hatred and discord?" In Russia, as else- 
where, they employed their religion as a pretext for interference 
with temporal and political affairs. 

The popular disfavor and distrust of Jesuits by the Italian 
people was so great that Pope Pius IX, the predecessor of Leo 
XIII, expelled the order from Italy. 

Under Bismarck, the Jesuits were banished from the German 
Empire about forty years ago, as a matter of INTERNAL 
STATE POLICY: they have rencently, this year (1917), been 
admitted again by that country, also as a matter of internal 
state policy, at present, as there is no difference between the 
absolutism of Jesuit and Kaiser.* 

(d) : While the pope is nominally the head of the Roman 
Catholics of the world, with authority to abolish or create, his 
authority is inferior to that of the Jesuit General : this is 
proved by the fact that after the proclamation of abolishment, 
the Jesuits refugeed to Russia, and refused to be abolished; from 
the very nature of its Constitution and principles, a Jesuit 
pledges his obedience to the General in terms stronger than 
the church requires of priests: "a Jesuit must regard his supe- 
rior as Christ the Lord, and must strive to acquire perfect resig- 
nation and denial of HIS OWN WILL and judgment to that 
which the superior wills and judges ... As for holy obedience, 
this virtue must be perfect in every point — in execution, in will, 
in intellect — in doing what is enjoined with all celerity, spiritual 



* Note — While the law against the Jesuit order was repealed in 1917, they 
were admitted into Germany on some sort of understanding With the Kaiser 
about six months before the World War began ! 



48 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

joy, and perseverence ; persuading ourselves that everything is 
just; suppressing every repugnant thought and judgment of 
one's own, in certain obedience; . . and let everyone persuade 
himself that he who lives under obedience should be MOVED 
AND DIRECTED under divine providence BY HIS SUPE- 
RIOR, JUST AS IF HE WERE A CORPSE (perinde ac si 
cadaver,) which allows itself to be moved and LEAD in ANY 
direction." (Nicolini.) In substance, Leo XIII requires this at- 
titude of mind and body from all Catholics: have no more will 
than a dead man regarding his Superior General. This, per- 
haps, explains why god the pope thought it best for the good of 
the church to abolish the order, "forever and to all eternity," 
while another one thought he blundered, and re-establish the 
order as a matter of internal church policy. Is not this a natu- 
ral deduction from the facts? 

God's purposes, as revealed by His laws, are immutable: 
yesterday, to-day and to-morrow are all an eternal NOW with 
Him — He would not say an organization, with fixed principles 
and purposes and laws should be utterly destroyed to-day, and 
on another, declare He had made a mistake, that it was too good 
to be destroyed: that is "expediency," not "immutability." 

From what I can learn, it seems to be the object of the Jes- 
uit order to bring the world under subjection to the pope, and 
hence, under the Jesuit General, who is, in fact, "the power 
behind the throne" in the Catholic church ; therefore the intense 
hatred of Jesuitism toward any principle of FREEDOM, and its 
opposition to any one who advocates freedom of mind or body; 
from this known principle of the Jesuits arises the popular 
suspicion against the Catholic church — Jesuitism uses any 
means to gain an end: will use Catholic or Protestant, or will 
become anything, even as a dead man, to carry out the will and 
object of the church. 

Though they spoke ex cathedra, the facts prove that several 
of the infallible popes were extremely fallible in dealing with 
the Jesuit order, which creates a reasonable doubt, in the minds 
of those who exercise the right to reason, as to the doctrine 
of infallibility — no chain is stronger than its weakest link — and 
the correctness of ANY papal decree, and the claim to a monop- 
oly of Christianity. 

If this is not a reasonable treatment of question 21, please 
set me right. 

No. 22: If baptism is essential to salvation and membership 
in your church, and if its validity depends upon whether or not 
the officiating priest had the right "intention" at the time of 
baptizing a subject of the church, how can any one know he is a 
member of your church — from the pope on down; do you require 
a certificate from the priest wherein he declares he had the right 
"intention" at the time of performing the ceremony? 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 49 

Answer : Baptism is not essential to salvation. It is not essen- 
tial to membership in the Catholic church. Its validity does not 
depend upon whether the officiating priest had the right "inten- 
tion" or not; its validity does not depend upon whether or not a 
priest officiates. Any person, Catholic, non-Catholic, Protestant, 
Jew or Infidel, can administer valid baptism. 

CRITICISM 

To this question you render a concatenation of self-evident 
contradictions: you assert that baptism is not essential to mem- 
bership in the Catholic church, nor essential to salvation; if 
this be true — and we presume that it is the object of your 
association, to give true information relative to the faith and 
practices and rights of Catholics — then the doctrine of baptism 
is a negligible quality in your church, having no value; but 
you say "any person" can administer it: that which is of no 
if it be true that it is not essential to salvation and church 
membership, it is of no value; but in direct contradiction of 
this, your church seems to attach so much importance to it, that 
you say "any person can administer it:" that which is of no 
value can have no standing in equity or in theory, therefore 
under no circumstances can it obtain validity, or value; and if 
your answer is the truth — and that is what I want — you have 
established beyond question that "intention" has nothing to do 
with baptism. 

Upon investigation, however, from other sources, I find there 
is a value attached to baptism that you Catholic laymen evi- 
dently are not aware of: the Jesuit order is the most powerful 
and influential in the Catholic church — it is either the true ex- 
ponent of Catholicism, or Catholicism is the true exponent of 
Jesuitism: about the beginning of the seventeenth century, 
Jesuit missionaries went into India; to get an opportunity to 
baptize, they assumed all the oaths, forms, ceremonies and re- 
galia of a Hindoo Sanissi, while others, like Nobili, became both 
Brahmins and pariahs. So cautious and secret were they, and 
so intent upon their purpose of saving souls by administering 
baptism, that one of them is quoted as saying, "Our whole at- 
tention is given to concealing from the people that we really 
are what they call Feringees (Europeans)." Xavier began this 
system and practice of "winning souls" in India — he is said to 
have baptized 10,000 in this way in one month. These priests 
would go into homes as physicians, draw a wet towel over the 
head and forehead of the unsuspecting sick, muttering to them- 
sevles the baptismal service; children at the point of death were 
baptized without the permission of parents; catechists and pri- 
vate Christians administered baptism under the pretext of giv- 
ing medicine; one woman is said to have baptized 10,000 chil- 
dren who were sick, not more than two escaping death; during 



50 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the famine in 1737, 12,000 were reported as baptized and "that 
it was rare, . . where there were neophytes, for a single heathen 
child to die unbaptized." 

For about one hundred years, the Jesuits in China and India 
adopted the pagan religions of those countries, in defiance of 
every law of their church, at that time, and of God, which gave 
rise to a controversy between them and the popes, continuing 
up to the time they were abolished, which was one of the reasons 
of "internal church policy" causing abolishment of the order; 
doing all this to baptize, to make converts, "to the greater glory 
of God" — doing that which, you say, is not essential to salva- 
tion nor to membership in your church; in our own country 
in this seventeenth year of this twentieth century, we find 
them up to their old tricks, as witness the Cody incident — 
evidencing there has been no change in the principles of the 
order since it was founded by Loyola "for the greater glory 
of God," and during all these centuries have not discovered they 
were doing that which the church, as pronounced by the Cath- 
olic Laymen's Association of Georgia, says is not essential to 
salvation ! 

This is all circumstantial or inferential evidence, attaching 
a paramount quality and essence to baptism in contradiction 
of your statement; alone, it is sufficient to establish the fact 
that baptism is essential, at least, to salvation in your church, 
according to the faith and practices of the Jesuit fathers; but 
we are not restricted to inference; that baptism is essential to 
both salvation and membership in the Catholic church is proved 
by authentic documentary evidence, viz. : 

In the "Manual of Prayers," heading, "Brief Statement of 
Catholic Doctrine," sub-caption, "Lay Baptism," we learn: 

"Provided an INFANT is in danger of dying before a priest 
can be procured, any other person, whether man, woman or child, 
may baptize it in the following manner : While pouring common 
water on the head or face of the infant, pronounce the words, 
'I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost'." For this to be VALID, evidently, the 
ANY OTHER PERSON must be a "lay" member of the Cath- 
olic church, and the person receiving it MUST be an INFANT. 
As Jews and Infidels do not believe in the Trinity, they could 
no more administer baptism than ice could form in boiling 
water. (The above is from a book bearing the imprimatur of 
Cardinal Gibbons.) 

In a Catechism of Catholic doctrine, endorsed by Cardinals 
Wiseman and McClosky, prepared by a Jesuit priest, the fol- 
lowing is taught as the faith of Catholics : 

"1. Which is the first and most necessarv Sacrament? 
"The first and most necessary Sacrament is Baptism. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 51 

"2. Why is Baptism the first Sacrament? 

"Because before Baptism no other Sacrament can be VALID- 
LY received. 

"3. Why is Baptism the most necessary Sacrament? 

"Because WITHOUT Baptism NO ONE can be saved. 

"4. What is Baptism? 

"Baptism is a Sacrament in which, by water and the word of 
God, we are cleansed from all sin, and regenerated and sanctified 
in Christ to life everlasting." Deharbe, p. 248. 

The following question was sent to Bishop Ben. J. Keiley, 
Savannah, Ga., Editor of "Our Sunday Visitor," Huntington, 
Ind., and J. Card. Gibbons, Baltimore: 

"Is baptism essential to salvation and membership in the Cath- 
olic church?" 

Bishop Keiley replied: "The form of baptism, that is to say, 
by immersion or pouring, as practiced in different religious 
bodies, is not essential; but the reception of the Sacrament of 
Baptism is necessary for salvation. Obviously the second ques- 
tion is answered in the reply to the first." 

The Editor of the Sunday Visitor answered, "Yes," assign- 
ing reasons. 

Cardinal Gibbons authorized his secretary to say " Yes," and 
that the subject would be found treated at length in his book, 
" Faith of Our Fathers." 

It is apparent that you and your bishop are somewhat at 
cross-purposes: he says one must "receive" the sacrament of 
Baptism, i. e., knowingly, with the consent of the mind and under- 
standing, in which case "Baptism is essential to salvation" and 
membership in your church, completely refuting your denial, and 
denies your contention that baptism is valid regardless of who 
administers it. 

It is very evident that your association, in not being able 
to answer correctly a simple, primary question like this, which 
is found in every Catechism, is hardly in possession of informa- 
tion sufficient to warrant organizing a bureau of informa- 
tion to impart a knowledge of the "faith and practices" of the 
Roman Catholic church; for in this instance there is a disagree- 
ment between the head of the church in Georgia and the lay 
members, and a disagreement between you laymen and three 
cardinals. 

I believe that I have proved to your satisfaction that you are 
in error as above, baptism being the first sacrament upon which 
the validity of all the others depend; now I will take up the 
doctrine of "Intention," the real basis of question 22: 

"Intention" is defined as being "A stretching or bending of 
the mind toward an object; hence, uncommon exertion of the 
intellectual faculties; closeness of application; fixedness of 
application; earnestness." To illustrate the operation of this 



52 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

principle among Catholics, Pope Pius recommended that Cath- 
olics all over the world, in the Battle Against Freemasonry, 
make it the general "INTENTION" of their prayers for the 
month of October, 1913; many small boys have escaped a 
deserved paddling, and many men a hangman's noose, by 
pleading lack of "intention;" the Jesuits in India and China 
pleaded "intention" in adopting all those pagan rites and cere- 
monies — their "intention" was, "the greater glory of God!" 

According to the Manual of Prayers, a candidate for admis- 
sion into the church must declare a belief in "everything . . 
that has been declared by the sacred Canons and by the Gen- 
eral Councils, and particularly by the Holy Council of Trent." 
Now, then: all Catholics are bound by the decrees of that Coun- 
cil as strongly as by any from the present pope, and it was at 
this Council that the doctrine of "Intention" was adopted, as 
follows : 

"If one shall say that in ministers, while they make (or com- 
plete) and confer the Sacraments, there is not required the in- 
tention of doing at least what the church does, let him be ac- 
cursed." Can. XI, Sess. VII. 

If this doctrine of an infallible Council has not been set 
aside by an infallible pope, as in the matter of abolishing and 
re-establishing the Jesuit order, it is as necessary for the priest 
to have the right "intention" in administering baptism as Car- 
dinal Gibbons says it is for laymen to have the correct "inten- 
tion" in participtaing in the mass; as essential as going to 
mass or confession; and if it has been set aside, please cite 
your authority; if it has not been annulled, then I ask, how 
may any one in the world know he is sure enough a member 
of the Catholic church and on his way to glory? (It also seems 
that a certificate should be required from the priest when he 
officiates at any other sacrament — marriage, for instance; for 
if he has not the right "intention" at that time, the marriage 
is invalid! If the priest who baptized your priest did not have 
the right "intention" your priest can perform no valid cere- 
mony in the church ! Even your pope cannot know he is a real 
Catholic, according to the laws of his own church!) 

A comprehensive consideration of this "supernatural" or 
unnatural doctrine among the "faith and practices" of your 
church inevitably leads to the conclusion that the Roman church 
can guarantee nothing relative to the hereafter, and that very 
few Catholics know what are the doctrines they profess to be- 
lieve, but must take everything for granted that a religious 
superior may say, because of his authority, such authority being 
vested in him by a man who derives his authority from the 
traditions of men — the Index is a wonderful institution! The 
beauty and simplicity of the Gospel message seems to have been 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 53 

lost among the traditions of the " Fathers," and instead of being 
saved by believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, you must trust 
your salvation to the "INTENTION" of a man! Intrusting an 
eternal soul to a man, and he not made to give bond for its 
safe delivery! 

Laynez, the successor of Loyola as General of the Jesuits, 
was the pope's representative at the Council of Trent; he was 
there to plead for the doctrine of papal infallibility, which was 
adopted — 300 years later. Although two church councils, Con- 
stance and Basil, denied papal infallibility, the Jesuits suc- 
ceeded in getting the decree through at the Vatican Council in 
1870; therefore, both those doctrines are Jesuitical: "inten- 
tion," making the people completely and absolutely dependent 
upon the priest, and making all priests dependent upon and 
subject to the pope, who can no longer be forced to resign from 
that office, as numbers had to do before the adoption of the 
decree of infallibility — bringing all under the government of 
the General of the Jesuits. For mutual favors these two forces 
— pope and Jesuits — have united with but one objective, namely: 
the pope, operating through his priests and laymen, controls 
the very right of Catholics to think; the General, working 
through his subordinates, the sworn enemies of all popular 
government, has been, and is now, meddling with the political 
affairs of the world, endeavoring to suppress every known means 
by which a man may learn that he was created by and in the 
image of God, whom He endowed in a degree with some of His 
attributes — the power to reason and think, in the exercise of 
which he would CHOOSE the right course in all things: this 
gigantic combination has as its int&ntion the subjugation of the 
earth to ONE MAN, and he made of the same clay as every 
other man, with no greater amount of gray matter in his head 
than is to be found in the heads of other men. 

If this were a case in court, your answer to question 22 would 
cause you to be impeached, and all testimony thrown out. 

Submit authority for this answer. 

No. 24: As your church forbids its members to discuss or 
study, independently of priest-censorship, any subject relative to 
religion, morality, ecclesiastical (church) history, etc., on what 
intelligent basis do YOU expect to see peace and harmony estab- 
lished between Roman Catholics and non-Catholics? 

Answer: Your presumption is all wrong, for our church does 
not forbid her children to discuss or study independently of 
priest-censorship any subject relating to religion, morality, eccle- 
siastical (church) history, etc. You evidently have been badly 
misinformed on this matter. 

CRITICISM 

Your answer to this question is amazing. Leo XIII, in his 
"General Decree Concerning the Censorship of Books," (See 



54 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

"Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII," Benziger Bros., New 
York, 1906.) page 412, Decree 2, forbids Catholics to read "The 
books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and all writers what- 
soever, defending heresy or schism, or in any way attacking the 
foundations of religion." 

Writing further on the subject, regarding the Rules of the 
Index, he says: 

"All the faithful are bound to submit to preliminary eccle- 
siastical (priest) censorship at least those books which treat of 
Holy Scripture, sacred theology, ecclesiastical (i. e., church) 
history, canon law, natural theology, ethics and other religious 
or moral subjects of this character; and in general, all writings 
specially concerned with religion and morality." P. 419, Decree 
41. 

Further : "We decree that these presents and whatsoever they 
contain shall at no time be QUESTIONED for any FAULT of 
SUBREPTION, or OBREPTION, or Our INTENTION, or for 
any other defect whatsoever; . . no man, therefore, may in- 
fringe or temerariously venture to contravene this document of 
Our Constitution, ordination, limitation, and derogation, and 
will. If anyone shall so presume, let him know that he will incur 
the wrath of Almighty God, and of the Blessed Apostles Peter 
and Paul." p. 421.* 

You must agree that I am not misinformed nor presuming as 
touching this matter, and that question 24 is yet to be answered. 

In connection with the above citations from the Index as 
stated by Leo XIII, permit the following observations: If, in 
issuing a decree ex cathedra relative to faith and morals by 
which Catholics are to be governed, the pope is at that time the 
infallible agent or Vice-Gerent of an Infallible God, why is it 
necessary for him to legislate against one taking advantage of 
FAULTS, of SUBREPTION, or OBREPTION, and forbid ques- 
tioning his "INTENTION"? 

Your attention is especially called to the fact that Leo recog- 
nizes the validity of the doctrine of "intention" in a certain 
case cited on page 396, as well as emphasizing the fact that no 
one is to question his "intention" relative to his decrees con- 
cerning the Index; Cardinal Gibbons also recognizes this doc- 
trine and the validity of the decree of the Council of Trent; on 
page 325, Manual of Prayers, under caption " Directions for 
Holy Communion," he says: "DIRECTION OF THE INTEN- 
TION. I intend to assist at the Holy Sacrament of the Mass 
. . . according to the rite of the Holy Roman church." The 
priest and communicant must both have the right "intention" 

* Note — This Constitution of the Index of Leo XIII just cited was decreed 
by the pope exercising his supreme legislative power, which every person 
swears to defend when he joins the Roman church, while others are born sub- 
ject to it. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 55 

in this ; if, in consecrating the wafers, he does not designate 
in his mind how many he is to use, and indicate which, and one 
is not consecrated, all remain simple wafers (i. e., none are 
turned into the Body and Blood of Christ), therefore it readily 
appears that no Catholic even knows that he is eating his Lord 
according to the requirements of the faith and practices of the 
Catholic church! 

No. 25 : Is there any appreciable number of Catholics of Geor- 
gia in any manner affiliated with the American Federated Cath- 
olic Societies? 

Answer : Yes. 

No. 26: To what extent do YOU think the organizing of this 
society has been instrumental in arousing an anti-Catholic 
spirit? 

Answer : I would say to no extent worth mentioning. 

No. 27: Does your church teach, directly or impliedly, that 
members must not accuse their priests or bishops even though it 
be know to them that prelates have committed grave sins? If so, 
how can a man protect his home? 

Answer : No, the church does not teach this, either directly or 
indirectly, explicitly or impliedly. A Catholic may protect his 
home in the same way a non-Catholic may protect his. 

No. 28 : Would your association prosecute a priest, if he were 
to wrong a member, by appealing to the laws of the land? 

Answer: If it were necessary to secure redress, we would. 

CRITICISM 

Your answer to this question is very positive, but it can not 
be made to harmonize even remotely with the Traditions of the 
Fathers, nor with the popes, showing conclusively that the In- 
dex is a very important feature in the Roman Catholic system 
of religion: 

The President of the Council of Trent, Hossius, says: "Pig- 
hius is blamed, who wrote that a priest, who through infirmity 
of the flesh hath fallen into whoredom, sins less than if he 
marry. This doctrine with some is vile, but with Catholics it 
is most honest." Hos., Confes., c. 56. 

Says Costerus: "Should a priest indulge in uncleanliness, 
nay, keep a concubine in his own house, although he is thereby 
guilty of a great sacrilege, yet he sins more heinously if he 
marry." Cos. de Co., eb. Sacredot. 

Card. Campeggio, another holy father, whose doctrine is to 
be given the same veneration by Catholics as the Bible, de- 
clared: "That for priests to become husbands, is by far a most 
grievous sin than if they should keep prostitutes in their houses." 
Card. Cam., op. Sleid., com. I, 4. 

Mathias Aquinas: "That a man who, after vowing continency 
doth marry, offends more than he who, through human frailty, 



56 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

goes astray with an hundred different women." Math. Aquin., Ap. 

These citations from the "holy" fathers of the Church of 
Rome are merely to reveal the attitude of the church toward 
the priesthood, and what, by inference, they may teach. 

We will let the pope speak ex cathedra, and see if there is 
not a unity of minds: 

On the "Chief Duties of Christians (Romanists) As Citi- 
zens," Leo XIII, pp. 203-4, Encyclical Letters, says: "Among the 
prelates, indeed, one or other there may be affording scope to 
criticism either in regard to personal conduct or in reference to 
opinions by him entertained about points of doctrine; but NO 
private person may arrogate to himself the office of judge which 
Christ our Lord has bestowed on that one alone above whom He 
placed in charge of His lambs and His sheep. Let every one bear 
in mind that most wise teaching of Gregory the Great: 'Subjects 
should be admonished not rashly to judge their prelates, even 
if they chanc& to see them acting in a blameworthy manner, 
lest reproving that what is wrong, they be lead by pride into 
greater wrong. They are to be warned against the danger of 
setting themselves up in audacious opposition to the SUPE- 
RIORS whose shortcomings they may notice. Should, therefore, 
the SUPERIORS really have committed GRIEVOUS SINS, 
their inferiors, penetrated with the fear of God, OUGHT NOT 
to refuse them respectful SUBMISSION. The ACTIONS of 
SUPERIORS should not be smitten with the sword of the 
word, EVEN WHEN THEY ARE RIGHTLY JUDGED TO 
HAVE DESERVED CENSURE.'" 

In many of your answers, you display a fine sense and under- 
standing of Jesuitical "juggling" of words in endeavoring, as 
it appears, to conceal rather than reveal, the faith and prac- 
tices of your church — an art very conspicuous on the part of the 
teaching church in its dealings with the hearing hurch, and 
which is very satisfactory to those who are forbidden to ques- 
tion, or make a mental effort to analyze phraseology: you 
surely ought to know that used in your answer to No. 28, the 
word "necessary" is open to several peculiar constructions, 
neither one of which would be complimentary to the layman nor 
priest. 

No. 29: A soldier, being under the command of superiors, 
must say and do only as he is ordered, regardless of his personal 
opinion or wishes: does this principle obtain in your church? If 
so, what can your association of LAYMEN hope to accomplish? 

Answer: The principle of action between a soldier and his 
superior officers does not obtain between the church and her chil- 
dren. The principle of action in the church is rather that pre- 
vailing in a well-regulated, God-fearing, devoted, affectionate 
family. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 57 

criticism 

As elsewhere shown, a member of the Jesuit order must, in 
mind, soul and body, be as soft wax in the hands of his superior; 
as obedient as a corpse in the hands of an undertaker, and this 
attitude of mind toward the pope is a fixed principle of the 
Church of Rome to which every layman must be obedient. Leo 
XIII, p. 139, says : "Whatever the Roman Pontiffs have hitherto 
taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be held with a firm 
grasp of mind," and (133) "ALL shall be of one mind," that 
(183) "the man who has embraced the Christian (Catholic) 
faith, as in duty bound, is by that very fact a SUBJECT OF 
THE CHURCH . . . and . . . which it is the special charge of 
the Roman Pontiff to RULE WITH SUPREME POWER . . . 
(191) neither can any one of its members choose . . (194) Union 
of minds . . . requires . . SUBMISSION AND OBEDIENCE 
OF WILL TO THE CHURCH AND TO THE ROMAN PON- 
TIFF, AS TO GOD HIMSELF . . . this likewise must be reck- 
oned among the duties of Christians (papists) that they allow 
themselves to be RULED and DIRECTED by . . AUTHOR- 
ITY ... of the Apostolic See." Also, "what we are bound to 
believe, and what we are obliged to do . . . are laid down . . . 
by the Supreme Pontiff . . . also . . . what it is necessary to do 
and what to avoid doing." That "obedience to the Roman Pon- 
tiff is the proof of the true faith," 380, and that "freedom of 
thinking and making known one's thoughts is not inherent in the 
rights of citizens." 126. 

As a symbol of the power he has, the pope wears a triple 
crown, signifying that he is god over heaven, earth and hell, 
from whose decision there is no appeal, and he has the right 
as pope to RULE and DIRECT Catholics in all matters per- 
taining to "faith and morals," and under the head of morals is 
where he directs their political or civic activities. Politics is 
the science of government — the pope demands that governments 
be made to conform to his law: that they must receive their 
right to exist from the Church of Rome; hence it follows that 
the Roman church, cannot separate politics and religion, neither 
can a Catholic say he will obey the pope in matters of "religion," 
and yet refuse in political or civic affairs; and if language con- 
veys any thought at all to the mind, the above citations, denning 
the "rule of action" by which all true "children" of the church 
MUST be directed, are as inflexible as the code of Prussian Mili- 
tarism, which makes machines out of human beings. 

When we consider the fact that the Jesuit order was founded 
by a Spanish soldier, we will readily see that its actuating 
principle must be typical of the absolutism that obtains in an 
army, where the commander alone exercises the right to say 



58 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

"what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing;" and when 
we consider further that the popes for several hundred years 
have been subject to the Jesuit influence, we can realize that no 
other "rule of action" except absolutism is possible; the Encycli- 
cals of Leo XIII show he was a master of Jesuit principles, and 
from the very nature of its "faith and practices" the Catholic 
church cannot permit the minutest degree of Liberalism or 
Freedom in the "rule of action" obtaining between it and its 
"children." 

A deserter from an army, if apprehended, is shot: if a priest 
or nun leaves the church, all its powers are hurled against 
them; while they remain in the church, they are veritable 
"saints" — the instant they leave its communion, they are por- 
trayed to the world as bats of hell, and I defy you to name one 
priest who has ever left the church when it did not apply this 
"rule of action."* 

Here is an excerpt from the bishop's oath — can you conceive 
of a German officer assuming an oath of obedience more drastic, 
in supporting Kaiserism?: "I shall observe, with all my strength 
and shall cause to be observed by others, the rules of the holy 
fathers. . . Heretics, schismatics and rebels . I will . wage war 
with," and one of the greatest of the "holy" fathers was the 
"Angelic Doctor," "Saint" Thomas Aquinas, who taught: "Re- 
specting heretics . . they deserve not only to be excluded from 
the church by excommunication, but from the earth by death." 
(When and where this doctrine is to be enforced, like many 
others of your church, must be determined by "expediency.") 
The canon law of your church teaches: "To kill one who has 
been excommunicated is no crime in a legal sense," so we see 
that if one of the "children" of the church "deserts" her he is 
subject to dire penalties according to the "intention" of the 
church — and that is what the church is to be judged by: not 
what it does, but what it claims as a "right" and would do if 
she could. There is but one remote analogy in the "principle 
of action" between the Roman church and her "children" and 
that which obtains in a well-regulated family, and that is, the 
church considers its members as "children," to be ruled and 
governed and directed, but has no age-limit when they are sup- 
posed to be full-grown; the nearest approach to a "corpse" 
under Jesuitism, is a "child" under Romanism: absolutely help- 
less. 

The Bible declares, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is 
he" . . "from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh" 
— if you keep a man from thinking, he can not speak — this 



* Rome used to burn them, when she had control of the State. That she 
would do so in America to-day, if predominant numerically or politically, will 
be shown before we finish this book. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 59 

gives a perfect "fighting machine" but not that type of citizen 
that makes for the best interests of a country; that principle 
will degrade any nation that submits to it. 

"In a well-regulated family" there are few, if any, books in 
the library that are not accessible to the ''children" — the Cath- 
olic church hands its "children" the Catechism, and threatens 
to consign them to everlasting perdition if they read any other 
books pertaining to their welfare, which is supposed to be laid 
down therein! 

No. 30 : Why is it a venial sin, that must be confessed, for a 
Catholic to attend a Protestant church service, but it is not made 
a sin by your church for its members to engage in the sale of 
intoxicating liquors? 

Answer: It is not necessarily a sin to attend a Protestant 
church service; it depends on many circumstances. It is more 
than likely a sin for Catholics to engage in the indiscriminate 
sale of intoxicating liquors, although, that too, depends upon 
circumstances. You should know also, that what is termed a 
venial sin is not a matter of confession. 

CRITICISM 

While it is not obligatory to confess venial sins, yet as a 
matter of safety first, it is advised; not infrequently the priest 
is supposed to ascertain from the penitents if they have at- 
tended "false places of worship." From the nature of your 
answer, you seem to understand Liguori very well for a lay- 
man, who says, "we may be allowed to conceal the truth, or to 
disguise it under ambiguous or equivocal words or signs, for 
a just cause." L. 2. 

I know it is not "necessarily" a sin to attend a Protestant 
church service — Bauney is quoted as saying, "He . . who is 
a communicant among Protestants without having his heart 
there, but out of pure derision . . and to accomplish his de- 
signs," etc., Sum. cap. 6, p. 73. On this theory, that "the end 
justifies the means," to accomplish their designs, to baptize, 
the Jesuits did not believe it was "necessarily" a sin for them 
to participate in all pagan rites of the Hindoos and Chinese, 
disguising themselves as pagan priests; there are no doubt 
many Jesuits filling Protestant pulpits, editing papers for Pro- 
testant readers — it all depends upon "intention." 

A non-Catholic marvels to discover to what extent "the true 
church" is governed by "circumstances" and "expediency" — 
principles that have no foundation in the teaching of the Christ; 
and I fail to find any similarity in the teaching of Christ and 
His "Vice-Gerent," Leo XIII, who said that "the lesser power 
yields to the greater in human resources." 

No. 31: If your church is the only true church, and its only 
aim is the salvation of souls, and Catholics are taught there is 



60 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

danger of losing their souls in going to Protestant churches, why 
does your church not teach and command its members to keep out 
of the liquor business, if it does not consider entering a Protes- 
tant church worse than running a barroom? 

Answer: In the Third Plenary Council the Hierarchy of the 
church in the United States expressly enjoined upon Catholics to 
sever their connection with the liquor traffic. 

CRITICISM 

You made no effort to answer this question. As to what the 
Third Plenary Council of Baltimore may have "enjoined" is 
not relevant. The pope and General Councils called by him 
alone are recognized, it seems, by Catholics in America, evidenced 
by the fact that they disregarded that part of the work of the 
Third Plenary Council relative to the sale of intoxicants, con- 
sidering such Councils as being merely advisory in their func- 
tions; the Catechism is supposed to "teach" Catholics that they 
ought not to engage in the whiskey business — you will note that I 
asked why the church did not "teach" and "command" its mem- 
bers, etc.; it "teaches" and "commands" Catholics not not read 
the History of the Roman church, its laws, etc., and they are 
obedient; it "teaches" and "commands" Catholics not to think 
or make known their thoughts outside of such as may be in 
strict conformity with the Catechism, and Catholics are obedi- 
ent; and if the Catholic church did not consider attending Prot- 
estant church services worse than running a bar room, it would 
keep its members out of that business by the same means it 
keeps them from Protestant churches; pre-natally, and from 
the cradle to the grave, the Catholic church makes use of every 
means that the human mind can devise to prevent any one from 
leaving its communion, and specifically points out what Cath- 
olics cannot do in the exercise of the reasoning faculties and pur- 
suit of certain studies, completely subjugating the human will, 
then virtually saying to such: "You ought not to engage in the 
whiskey business, but we can not force you out of it — you must 
be governed in this by your own judgment; we will not try to 
force you to live a clean life against your will," which is equiv- 
alent to pulling the fire out of an engine but still expect her to 
"fly." 

Where the mind of man is made subject to the will of another, 
whether this be accomplished by a peculiar system of religious 
training, or by hypnotism, the result is the same : a perversion of 
that natural order intended, evidenced by each being endowed 
with a mind and will. 

From what I have been able to learn relative to the faith and 
practices of the Catholic church, it teaches, by inference, that 
all one has to do to be right in this and the world to come is, 
join that church; it seems to matter very little, according to 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 61 

its dogmas what sort of life one may live, which destroys the 
free moral agency of man as regards salvation, changing "Who- 
soever believeth" to "Whoever is Catholic" shall be saved; if 
occasionally only I saw a man with a head, and all the others 
were like an earthworm, then there would be some natural 
foundation for the Catholic theory that one man has the right 
to control the minds of men; where such system prevails, man- 
kind being, as it were, under an hypnotic spell, the mental and 
moral status of society is not on a very high intellectual plane, 
neither indeed can be. 

It is a matter of common knowledge that whiskey is respon- 
sible for about 75 percent of all crime, disease, degradation, 
vice, shame, disgrace, misery and ignorance of our country; 
with this in mind, read the following circular, from 

The Catholic Protective Association 

Baltimore, Maryland 

H. S. Murphey, Executive Director 

October 8, 1915. 

Dear Sir: As you know, the Catholic church, itself, and the 
American Federation of Catholic Societies never take an interest 
in politics, hence our Association seeks to unite all the organi- 
zations and friends of the church for political action. 

On account of our heavy financial interests, certain un-Amer- 
can papers and secret societies are carrying on a campaign to 
destroy the liquor business, which is as legitimate to all sane 
people as any other business. 

Our people own practilally 85 out of every 100 saloons and 
they give good employment to many thousands of OUR 
CHURCH people. 

These business men and their friends and employees have al- 
ways CONTRIBUTED LIBERALLY to the CHURCH'S needs. 
They have ALWAYS been a TOWER OF POLITICAL 
STRENGTH for our friends and interests. 

Let us not, as church members, but as individuals, show our 
gratitude and save this legitimate investment for our friends 
by voting every time against prohibition. YOUR state votes 
November 2d. 

This is the most effective way of protesting against this vicious 
anti-Catholic movement. Please speak confidentially about this 
to your friends. Respectfully, 

H. S. Murphey. 

P. S. Don't forget to subscribe, or get up a club of subscribers, 
to the Sunday Visitor. It is a strong national paper, and merits 
your support. 

About this time, a Knight of Columbus was heard to remark, 
referring to an election in Macon on the previous day, "I voted 
yesterday against everything that even looked like prohibition." 

Leo XIII, chap. V, Decree 47, p. 420, of Encyclical Letters, 



62 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

teaches and commands that Catholics must not read "the books 
of apostates and heretics defendig heresy; or books by any 
author which are by name prohibited" by the Index under pain 
of incurring "ipso facto excommunication." Any book that in 
any way criticizes the pope or the church or any dogma, is 
forbidden to Catholics — "governing the minds" of Catholics, 
but letting them act morally as their "judgment" may dictate! 

While my study of your church has not been extensive, so far 
the circular and injunction of Leo seem to epitomize Catholi- 
cism throughout the ages: the "teaching church" (popes and 
councils) pronouncing anathema against any one who dares to 
use his own mind and will and God-given brains to reason and 
think, while the "hearing church" (the members) can do that 
which may damn the race of mankind; god the pope damns a 
soul to hell forever for reading the history and laws of the 
church, yet this god's children "own practically 85" per cent of the 
barrooms that produce 75 per cent of all human ills — verily, if a 
tree is to be judged by its fruit, what sort of a "tree" is this 
that you are pleased to say is the "only" true church established 
by Jesus Christ? 

If a Catholic incurs excommunication for reading or even 
keeping a book that is heretical, it naturally follows that one 
who goes to hear a heretic in a Protestant church discourse on 
heretical themes, without a "dispensation" to go there, incurs 
the same penalty. 

It is a good legal principle that a man is responsible for the 
conduct of his children until they themselves become amenable 
to the law: nowhere in the economy of your church do I find 
a recognition of the principle of personal responsibility in re- 
gard to the "faithful" its "children;" and by that very fact the 
Roman church the pope is rightly held responsible for the ex- 
istence of the liquor traffic and all its attendant evils. 

The theory of the dogma of your church, the "Works of Su- 
pererogation," seems to be illustrated and involved in this ques- 
tion of liquor: one division of the church, the "sisters," trying 
to do good in various ways, while their "brethren," in the liquor 
business, etc., assure them of steady employment! A sort of 
family affair? 

The connection of Catholics with the liquor business seems to 
illustrate another vital, "supernatural" dogma of your church: 
"Our people own practically 85 out of every 100 saloons," the 
other 15 are owned by infidels and unbelievers; the "children" 
of the true church and the "children of the devil" meeting on 
a common level, existing on the same plane, with one objective, 
and that, to coin money out of human misery, exerting the same 
influence in the world and on society; both Catholic and infidel 
stretching cords across the pathway to trip man and wreck lives : 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 63 

in like manner, when the pope speaks ex cathedra, to Catholics it 
is as the voice of an Infallible God, while the pope as a man, may 
be as vile a creature in his personal life and conduct as ever a 
man could be. 

What the Catholic religion DOES in the world speaks so loud 
to those not deafened by the Index that they cannot hear what 
it SAYS — because ACTIONS speak louder than words. The 
WORDS of Christ were in the language of a God— His 
ACTIONS proved He was God: "By their fruits ye shall know 
them." 

A careful survey of the above will reveal, in part, not only 
why Protestants, but a very large percentage of non-religion- 
its, oppose Catholics for political place or preferment, and 
object to them in connection with the public school system; non- 
Catholics, as a rule, will not interfere with Catholics in their 
business relations, but do object to placing them where they 
can, in the course of time, probably dominate, and force their 
religion upon others — a line of action demanded by the popes. 

In these United States there is now one Catholic to every six 
non-Catholics; if the Catholic element is as busy in the inter- 
est of the pope as he requires — and if they are not, they should 
get out of that church — and the other people are indifferent, it 
requires no mathematician to figure the answer: the Great 
World War now raging was started by trying to force the 
Roman Catholic religion on the Protestant non-Catholic Greeks 
— less than ten thousand Roman Catholics in that State, be- 
cause in political control, signing a concordat with the pope 
to make Catholicism the religion of State, disregarding the 
rights and wishes of two and one-half million Greeks, the Ser- 
vians; and we find that the pope and kaiser operate on the same 
principle; and right here may be noted a recent event of inter- 
est: while the pope was shown every consideration by the Ital- 
ian government except letting him rule civil affairs, his pri- 
vate secretary, von Gerlach, has been sentenced to a life-term 
in prison for plotting against Italy in behalf of the Kaiser, 
and the Imperial German Government has lifted the ban, re- 
admitting Jesuits.* 

We find the Catholic bar keeper in America today doing just 
as his infidel brother-barkeeper: so the Catholic Jesuit priest 
in India was found doing just as his brother-Hindoo priest — 
neither layman or priest can read a Protestant book or attend 
Protestant churches, but in their life and action, doing as the 
heathen, and attempting, all over America, to prevent Protes- 
tants from telling each other what they believe to be the real 



* It was proved that von Gerlach was instrumental in having two Italian 
battleships blown up, with great loss of life. 



64 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

"intention" of popery in the United States, then making a 
plea for peace, denying everything, and promising nothing, as 
a basis upon which it is to be established. 

After deducting the sums paid for grain, labor, salaries, taxes, 
etc., in the manufacture and sale of intoxicants, the liquor traf- 
fic is shown to entail a loss of billions of dollars annually in 
this country for drink and in taking care of the various by- 
products of the traffic: about 85 per cent of this liquor is sold 
Roman Catholics, and if every Roman Catholic woman in Amer- 
ica should work incessantly assisting your "sisters" in trying 
to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, educate the ignorant, heal 
the diseased, care for the sick and the orphan and the degraded, 
and seek the general amelioration of misery, they could not by 
far begin to offset or repay society at large for the ills inflicted 
by their brethren of your "true" church, in their saloons. As only 
15 percent of the saloons are operated by unbelievers, infidels, 
etc., out of the total of about 60,000,000 non-church members in 
America, it seems to indicate that the influence of the Roman 
Church creates a social evil and an economic waste, and that 
the country would be better off without the Catholic church. 

If the pope, by reason of his authority, can keep people from 
going to "false places of worship," keep them from reading 
books by heretics, and even prevent them from reading the law, 
history and theology of their own church, yet cannot keep them 
out of the liquor traffic, it is reasonable to suppose his motive 
is not for the good of Catholics, or people in general, in endeav- 
oring to subject their minds to his will. 

If you do not believe these conclusions to be natural deduc- 
tions from the above, indicate the error. 

No. 32: The Ne Tewiere decree of your church was enforced 
in America in 1908; non-Catholics believe your church becomes 
more insistant in its demands and efforts to enforce the decrees 
of the Vatican in proportion as it grows in numerical and poli- 
cal strength ; if that is not true, please state why this decree was 
not ordered enforced in this country at an earlier period — say, 
for instance at the time of the Revolutionary or Civil Wars? 

Answer: The reason that the Ne Temere decree was not put 
into effect throughout the United States until 1908 was because 
of the absence of a sufficient number of Catholic priests in this 
country to render the observance of its rules practical on the 
part of Catholics. The church is always solicitous not to enjoin 
upon her children a rule of conduct that would be generally a 
hardship and for this reason the rule requiring all Catholics who 
marry to come before a priest, was delayed until the number of 
priests were such as to make one available in most any part of 
the country at most any time. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 65 

criticism 

Your answer to this question is not only a tacit admission 
of the point suggested, but also an admission that your church 
is governed largely by "expediency" in the matter of enforcing 
its laws relative to "faith and practices," which is entirely in 
harmony with Leo XIII, who says, p. 132: "First and foremost 
it is the duty of all Catholics worthy of the name . . to en- 
deavor to bring back ALL civil society to the PATTERN AND 
FORM of Christianity We have described. It is barely possible 
to lay down any fixed method by which such purposes are to be 
obtained, because the MEANS adopted must suit PLACES and 
TIMES. . . . Nevertheless, above all things, unity of aim must 
be preserved, and similarity must be sought after in all plans of 
action." 

During the past years, "in the absence of a sufficient number 
of Catholic priests," Catholics seemed to learn somehow, and 
retain the knowledge, that it was against the law of the church 
to read certain books or attend certain churches; but they did 
not know that the Ne T&mere decree, like many others hidden 
from them in the canon laws of the church, perhaps was to be 
enforced as "expediency" may warrant. 

Hildebrand, in the fourteenth century* passed a decree that 
forced priests and bishops to put away their wives and chil- 
dren — although he kept his concubines; the law then, being en- 
forced, did not show that the church had much regard for her 
"children" in enforcing such hardships on them; so in the mat- 
ter of the enforcement of the Ne T enter e decree in 1908; if all 
those Catholics who lived, married and died in utter ignorance 
of that old decree of the Council of Trent, gave your church 
so little concern, acting on the same principle, the church should 
have made the law operative as to the future, and not retro- 
active; in making the law retroactive, many happy homes were 
either broken up, or its peace and harmony forever destroyed. 

Tried by the rule of logic, reason and common sense, the 
Roman church in action impresses one of the necessity of 
searching for the hidden meaning in Jesuit phraseology and 
the ulterior motive of every act of the church as one would seek 
the hidden outlines of figures in a picture-puzzle: In arbitra- 
rily enforcing the marriage law in 1908, the church showed 
no consideration for its "children" nor any regard for those 
who were allied with them by marriage according to the law of 
the land; therefore non-Catholics have a legitimate reason to 
seek for the ulterior and real motive of the church, and this 
seems to be the true solution : By letting that decree lie dormant 
several centuries, especially in non-Catholic States, religious 

* This was a stenographic error ; should read eleventh century. 



66 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

prejudice would eventually die out; Catholic and non-Catholic 
would become closely associated in business, social, civil and 
political life, and by this, with inter-tmarriage, Catholicism 
would be interwoven into the very life of the nation to such an 
extent that, like fish in a net, at the command of the pope to en- 
force this decree, America would be pulled into the Roman Cath- 
olic church, or would give it such power and prestige as to make 
that church dominant in the political and civil life of the 
nation — hence, at about this time we find that all the Catholics 
in America federated, and a slogan thrown to the winds to 
"Make America Dominantly Catholic." The Catholics and non- 
Catholics in this country, as in Germany in the fifteenth cen- 
tury, were living in peace and harmony, "until a sufficient num- 
ber" of Jesuit priests came upon the scene of action; at that 
period in Germany there was practically one Catholic only to 
every nine Protestants — one percent Catholic — but that number, 
under the direction of a ''sufficient" number of Jesuit priests, 
was "sufficient" to tear the country asunder with a long war 
and reign of bloodshed, and put Protestant Germany under the 
Roman church; in America they have six per cent population, or- 
ganized and under the direction of that same "Society of Jesus" 
that devastated Germany (and, as many believe, instigated the 
present German Kaiser in his madness) and made the pope 
supreme, yet you say this federation had practically nothing to do 
with arousing an anti-Catholic spirit in this country : if that doea 
not prove the efficiency of the Index, it seems to indicate Cath- 
olics do not believe non-Catholics capable of reasoning from 
cause to effect. 

When a contention arises between individuals or nations, 
simple justice demands that each party thoroughly understand 
the issues involved — what each desires — in order to establish 
peace. With this idea in mind, as well as having a desire to 
know certain things by proof, I endeavored, by submitting a 
series of questions, to show some of the points of difference, as 
you had made a "Plea for Peace," indicating what Protestants 
generally believe to be the "intention" of the Roman church, and 
to ascertain, by the manner in which you answered, if this be- 
lief was founded on fact, and if so, to what extent Catholic 
laymen understood, and would defend such "intention." As 
witnesses, the testimony of you laymen and your general manner 
as witnesses, in connection with the fact that in regard to cer- 
tain faith and practices there is an entire disagreement with 
established facts, tends to discredit the sincerity of your "Plea 
for Peace." 

A plea for peace in the political arena will fall on deaf ears, 
unless it is supported by an evident desire to remove, at least, 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 67 

some of the elements of disagreement— which I fail to find in 
your answers. 

The doctrine of ''Intention" as well as the Ne Temere Decree* 
was adopted at the Council of Trent in the fifteenth century: in 
1908, about 336 years later, it was enforced in all the States of 
this Union — enforced as soon as the Roman church became nu- 
merically or politically strong enough to do so; this proves that 
EVERY law of the Roman church, regardless of its nature or 
age, is essentially and vitally a part of its faith and practice, 
and that any one or all of them are to be enforced — when, to be 
determined by conditions, times and places — when "expedient," 
and the pope is to be the judge; now: non-Catholics know the 
inveterate hatred of Jesuitism to the free schools of America, and 
that it is the "intention" of the Roman church to destroy or con- 
trol them, and bring all education under the control of that 
church — securing the child as a means of holding the adult — 
therefore, it is natural that, as Catholics are taught by the pope 
public schools are "godless" and to keep their children away 
from them as far as possible, the presence of Catholics in public 
schools as teachers, and the strenuous efforts of Catholics to get 
on school boards, oftentimes sending their children to parochial 
schools after getting on such boards, arouses a suspicion as to 
the ulterior motive on the part of the church in permitting its 
members to hold such positions. 

Leo XIII prefers that Catholics associate with Catholics, to 
safeguard their faith and morals, and, according to the opinion 
of the church, Catholics are in danger of having their faith and 
morals corrupted in the public schools, unless they are there for 
a purpose, unknown even to Catholics, as in the matter of the 
Ne Temere decree. Some think the "intention" here is far- 
reaching: that in the course of time practically all the public 
schools of America will have Catholic teachers and school boards; 
about this time, the Roman church will have complete control 
of the army and navy (the regular army now being 33 percent 
and the navy 40 per cent Catholic), be in control of the police 
and fire departments, in all public offices of trust and influence, 
and control the Supreme Court benches of the States and Nation, 
after which the pope may order ALL Catholics wherever serv- 
ing to TEACH THE CATECHISM along with the other studies, 
and being the gun-bearers of the nation, the church will be in 
position to enforce this decree, cost what it may in loss of life 
and property and money. 

The Catholic church has the same "intention" to-day as it had 
a thousand years ago— if it seems to forget, or fails to enforce 

• Should read the "Marriage Law," instead of "Ne Temere decree." 



68 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

any one of its decrees, it is merely biding its time:, and it is 
as much the duty of Catholic teachers to teach the Catholic re- 
ligion to pupils as for Catholics to be married by a priest of 
Rome ! This can not be denied by any Catholic who understands 
the faith and practice of his church. 

If this is not a correct "guess" as to the "intention" of the 
church, under the direction of the Jesuits, I would appreciate 
your explanation of the presence of Catholics in the "godless" 
schools as teachers; and if this is not a better, analysis of ques- 
tion 32 than your answer, in presenting what may be the policy 
or "intention" of your church kindly show me where I am wrong. 



On a leaflet received from you, relative to marriage of non- 
Catholics, you quote Cardinal Antonello, Prefect of Rome, as say- 
ing: "The idea that Catholics are taught to believe that the mar- 
riage of Protestants are invalid and their children illegitimates 
is a hate-breeding idea, and it is a social crime to circulate such 
false and malicious belief." A cardinal, although holding a high 
position in the pope's household, can not speak for the pope — let 
him speak for himself, and then say who is spreading this "hate- 
breeding idea:" Speaking on "The Unity of the Church," on 
page 358 of the Great Encyclical Letters, Leo XIII says: 

"The Church of Christ, therefore, is ONE AND THE SAME 
FOREVER; those who leave it depart from the will and com- 
mand of Christ the Lord — leaving the path of salvation they 
enter on that of perdition. WHOSOEVER IS SEPARATED 
FROM THE CHURCH IS UNITED TO AN ADULTERESS." 

Of course, here he is referring to things spiritual, nevertheless 
just as offensive, in considering all other churches as "prosti- 
tutes;" no comment is necessary. 

Now, we will let him speak concerning marriage: "The Evils 
Affecting Modern Society," page 18, of the Great Encyclical Let- 
ters, published by Benziger Bros., Printers to the Holy See in 
America, New York: 

"But when IMPIOUS LAWS, setting at naught the sanctity 
of this great sacrament, putting it (marriage) on the same foot- 
ing with mere civil contracts, the lamentable result followed, 
that, outraging the dignity of Christian (papal) MARTIMONY, 
citizens made use of LEGALIZED CONCUBINAGE." 

From utterances like these, from your church, spring those 
"hate-breeding ideas," that the church teaches that "the mar- 
riages of Protestants are invalid and their children illegitimates." 
These ideas seem to be well-founded — do you not think so? 

Jesuit sophistry ! Certainly, your cardinal is right, in a certain 
sense: for it stands to reason, that if this "concubinage" is 
"legalized," then children are "legitimates" — but your cardinal 
does not attempt to brush away what the church teaches, viz: 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 69 

that though married according to civil law, such marriage is 
"only a rite or custom," says Leo, "introduced by the civil law." 
It occurs to me that a "Plea for Peace" would be more effect- 
ive, instead of devoting so much space to what outsiders say 
regarding the church, recounting what she has done in the past 
and how well Catholics have served the country, if such pleas 
should quote the popes, and explain what they are trying to 
teach. 



Thundering down the ages of Time, to reverberate till time 
is lost in Eternity, "THOU SHALT" and "THOU SHALT 
NOT," the Immutable Law of God was given to man — applicable 
and of full force AT ALL TIMES, IN ALL PLACES, AND 
UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, with one divisional differ- 
ence: before Christ came, the LETTER of the law was sufficient; 
after His advent both the letter and SPIRIT of the law must be 
obeyed— the OVERT ACT, and the COVERT "INTENTION" 
being of equal weight; but it seems to me that in its faith and 
practices, the Roman church endeavors to set aside that great 
fact, and enforce these mandates as may seem EXPEDIENT at 
different times and places, which places Catholics in a trying pre- 
dicament occasionally in an effort to make times and places gibe 
with "expediency," as witness the following, wherein it appears 
that Bishop Keiley of Savannah got truth and "error" (?) so 
mixed that no Protestant knows whether he is telling the truth or 
otherwise. In a subsequent leaflet from your association, the 
following was printed as an excerpt from a Pastoral Letter of 
the Bishop: 

"They accuse us of the worship of idols . . . and believing 
and teaching that no Protestant can be saved. We deny both of 
these false statements." 

Is the bishop a Jesuit? Certainly, the church does not teach 
that Protestants cannot be saved — like any other heathen, all 
they have to do is, join the "only true church." Simple isn't it? 

When a Catholic is speaking or writing for the purpose of con- 
cealing what the church teaches, or to prevent its "intention" 
from being made too manifest, especially to non-Catholics, the 
Jesuit art of mental reservation, or evasion of mind, is very 
subtle and useful: in direct contradiction of what the bishop is 
quoted as saying, I will now quote from Deharbe's "Full Cate- 
chism of Catholic Religion," censored by Cardinals Wiseman and 
McClosky, page 145, sub-topic "On Salvation in the True Church 
of Christ Alone:" 

Qu. "64. If the Catholic church is to lead all men to salvation, 
and has, for that purpose, received from Christ her doctrine, her 
means of grace, and her power, what, for his part is everyone 
obliged to do? (Emphasis mine.) 



70 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Ans. "EVERYONE is OBLIGED, UNDER PAIN OF 
ETERNAL DAMNATION, to become a MEMBER of the 
CATHOLIC CHURCH, to BELIEVE her DOCTRINE, to USE 
her means of grace, and to SUBMIT to HER AUTHORITY." 

As this doctrine is from a duly approved Catechism of the 
church, presumably intended for the exclusive use of the "faith- 
ful," it MUST be correct — at least, two cardinals approved it 
as true doctrine; therefore, it is evident you laymen misquoted 
the bishop, or, that the bishop needs to study his Catechism! 



In your answer to question 22, you laymen have deliberately 
denied the faith, are at cross-purposes with your own bishop, 
Cardinal Gibbons, and your Catechism, regarding baptism; you 
have denied the doctrine of "Intention" which was adopted by 
the same Council that promulgated the marriage law of the 
church, which is recognized as valid and binding by Cardinal 
Gibbons and Pope Leo XIII; 

Your own bishop, if you quoted him correctly, has made an 
attempt to mislead the people — 

THEREFORE: If you attempt to maintain the answers you 
have rendered, and that I have treated at some length above, it 
is necessary for you to name the pope or general council as your 
authority — no lesser authority is competent to establish the 
truth of any matter; and such citations must be from duly 
authenticated documents — such as are taught the "faithful" as 
true Catholicism; any one else is unworthy of belief, as is evi- 
dent from the foreging answers to questions. 

In conclusion, I will test the sincerity of your Association in 
regard to subject-matter of questions 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and in general 
19, by inviting you to deliver, first-hand, what your church 
teaches as a matter of faith and practice concerning these ques- 
tions, in a series of lectures, to large, interested Macon audi- 
ences — your representative to speak as many nights as desired, 
but to be alternated by a non-Catholic showing why and what 
others believe to be the doctrine and teaching of the church rela- 
tive to them ; I will secure a hall for the purpose and pay all 
reasonable expenses of your representative while here for that 
business, raising the money, probably, by charging a nominal 
admission fee. 

If you believe in free speech — and you say you do — this is 
your chance to prove it: to people who believe in the Constitu- 
tion, any question that can not be discussed from every angle 
is viewed with distrust and considered unsafe. 

If, by the exercise of his authority, the pope can estop you from 
responding to the innate promptings of manhood to accept this 
challenge to debate the questions, why should not non-Catholics 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 71 

believe you would be obedient to your church in all things "that 
have already been taught, or that may hereafter be taught?" 

I think you must agree with me, if I say your Association is 
a very unreliable source from which to secure information, and 
that it is even unsafe to put too much faith in what Bishop 
Keiley may say: all this, however, does not appear so strange, 
considering that the highest authority of your church, a pope, 
gets tangled while making ex cathedra utterances, viz: Leo XIII 
says : "A State is nothing but a multitude . . . which is its own 
master," p. 120, and that "Justice, therefore, forbids, and reason 
forbids, the State to be godless — namely, to treat the various re- 
ligions (as they call them) alike, and bestow upon them promis- 
cuously equal rights and privileges. Since, then, the profession 
of ONE religion is necessary in the State, THAT religion must 
be professed which ALONE is true," p. 260, supporting that 
"truth" with the further assertion that "the Catholic religion . . 
is alone the TRUE religion," p. 200, and to prove the truth of his 
contention, cites from the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, 
which teach that it is an error to say that "The Church must.be 
separated from the State, and the State from the Church." 

From the foregoing it is evident that this is a "godless" nation, 
because it will not sign an agreement with the pope to banish all 
others and make Roman Catholicism the religion of State — as a 
"godless" nation, it has been in existence long enough to be con- 
sidered a "government," yet Leo contradicts himself, saying: 
"Whatsoever the form of government, the authority is from 
God!" A "godless" nation, receiving its authority from "God"! 
If popes, cardinals, bishops and laymen can not make the faith 
and practices of the church harmonize, how can they teach 
others the doctrine of the church? 

Leo XIII further asserts that "Whosoever is separated from 
the church is united to an adulteress;" now, according to him — 
the highest authority in the church — Roman Catholics are taught 
that, because America has not signed a concordat with the Vat- 
ican excluding all other religions and sercet orders, and placing 
all education in the hands of priests and nuns, our American 
civilization "is nothing but a WORTHLESS IMITATION and a 
meaningless name," p. 12; it is nothing but a "multitude" and 
"godless," being "united to an adulteress" — a nation whose wives 
and mothers are "legalized" concubines — yet, and notwithstand- 
ing all this, it gets its authority from God! p. 315. He is as 
self-contradictory as some of his "children" are with each other 
and with the church, as shown in the foregoing pages; contra- 
dictions and chaos, from laymen to pope! 

Well and truly does the pope look upon Catholics as "chil- 
dren" and the "faithful," for it requires an abounding "faith" 



72 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

to accept whatsoever your church proposes, and believe it merely 
by reason of the authority of religious superiors, who exact it. 



ADDENDUM 
Remarks on Marriage and Unity of Teaching 

According to one's judgment, in matters that pertain to the 
accomplishing of an object — which in itself is right — he may be 
governed by "expediency;" to illustrate the point: If I should 
have an urgent professional call to Atlanta, I would first con- 
sider when the next train left; if there were no trains in several 
hours, I would consider the condition of the highway for auto- 
mobile travel; I would deem it "expedient" to wait for the next 
train, or go by auto, as the case may be, in answer to the call — 
but professional ethics would prevent me from deciding the mat- 
ter of answering the call by resorting to "expediency.'" 

The Great God has issued a call to Man through His Son, 
saying: "Come unto me:" how to answer the call, is laid down 
in His Word; expediency may govern an individual's movements 
— how best to respond to the call, but it can have no modifying 
influence upon the call. 

The papal church claims to be Christian; if it is, the "call" it 
makes to the outsider must be as the call of Christ, UNIFORM, 
and unswervingly true to the Word wherever preached or de- 
clared: now, let us see if we can find the mark of UNIFORM- 
ITY in the Roman church, and if the "expediency" to which it 
resorts tends to establish the claim of being the only true church 
established by Jesus Christ: 

In America and elsewhere, when non-Catholics are in the ma- 
jority, they are usually referred to as "our separated brethren," 
and men like Mr. Farrell send out slips, without an imprimatur, 
saying that "The idea that Catholics are taught to believe that 
marriages of Protestants are invalid and their children ille- 
gitimate is a hate-breeding idea, and it is a social crime to cir- 
culate such false and malicious belief." In this connection, I 
will quote from "Dr. Dozier's Reply to Mr. (priest) Coyle": 

"In the appendix of Ripalda's Catechism, published at Barce- 
lona, Spain, November 10, 1910, bearing the imprimatur of the 
Vicar General, Jose Palmorola, the following is set forth for the 
papist youth to learn: 

"'Question: What is the matrimony which is called civil? 
" 'Answer: That which is celebrated by a civil authority with- 
out any ecclesiastical intervention whatever. 

"'Question: Is civil matrimony true matrimony? 
" 'Answer : No, but base concubinage. 
'"Question: Why? 
'Answer: Because true matrimony should be celebrated by 



u < 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 73 

the ecclesiastical authority, fulfilling likewise all which has been 
ordained by Jesus Christ and our Holy Mother Church!'" 

That this is true Catholic doctrine as to matrimony will be 
proved by referring to the Canon Law on the subject cited else- 
where. The Roman church, through Jesuitical casuistry, like a 
weather-cock, adjusts itself, apparently, to conditions over 
which it has no control; but to know what is the truth relative 
to any phase of Catholicism, go to the law which makes Catholics 
— read the doctrine it commands them to believe ; a priest or lay- 
man is permitted to make such answer in any case as will best 
serve the church, but no one can gainsay the law on the subject. 



LAYMEN'S REPIES TO CRITICISMS 

WITH THE 

AUTHOR'S COMMENTS 

The Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia acknowledged 
receipt of my objections to their answers presented in the fore- 
going pages, as follows: 

Augusta, Ga., Sept. 20, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 

American National Bank Bldg., 
Macon, Ga. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of September 7th with your objections 
to my answers to your previous questions, is noted. 

While most all you say has been argued to us in much the 
same way by other correspondents, none of them have assembled 
so many assertions, denials, assumptions, challenges, in one com- 
munication. You have thus presented the anti-Catholic con- 
tention in a way that furnishes a rather helpful index to the 
anti-Catholic mind. 

On the basis of what you say, our "Plea for Peace" can be 
renewed, and every answer formerly made can be reaffirmed 
with confidence and truth. Because, since we now understand 
you better, there is some hope of our being able to make you 
understand us, not saying however, that you will agree with us, 
which is not at all necessary for "peace." 

You will no doubt consent to my discussing your paper in 
installments, writing you each day or two as opportunity affords 
consideration, apart from other matters, of what you have to 
say. 

Anticiptaing no dissent from you on this score, allow me to 
hope that you will not take anything I say amiss, nor set up a 
barrier to our better understanding of one another, until the 
conclusion. 

I shall write again tomorrow. 

Very truly yours, 
JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT BY AUTHOR 

Having "furnished a rather helpful index to the anti-Catholic 
mind," I have a right to expect clear, true, authoritative answers 
and explanations concerning the questions discussed. That the 
letters from Mr. Farrell, who acts in an official capacity for the 
Roman Catholic church, will "furnish a rather helpful index" 
to the nature and spirit of Catholicism, I firmly believe. 

Of the Thrity-Two Questions, fully twenty-five vitally concern 
every American citizen. 

This official association says that "agreement" is not necessary 
to "peace." I do not believe peace can be established on any 
other basis; there are certain questions, like No. 13, for instance, 

(74) 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 75 

which MUST be answered and some sort of agreement reached 
relative thereto on the part of the Catholic church, and these 
questions must be understood by Americans. 

Whether or not the series of letters from the Laymen's Asso- 
ciation offer such explanations of dogmas and laws sufficiently 
to permit of that understanding necessary to establish peace 
between the different forces will be left for the intelligent reader 
to determine for himself. 

For brevity and to conserve space, I will omit my name and 
address in quoting the letters received from the Association, and 
begin them by using the date lines; I may also use the word 
"association" or "Farrell" interchangeably in place of the full 
name of the association. 

Immaterial errors which crept into the correspondence of all 
parties will be corrected, if it can be done without interfering 
with the sense of the text, or where I am reasonably sure of what 
was intended to be said, as this is a discussion of principles 
instead of a contest in grammar or rhetoric. 

Augusta, Ga., Sept. 21, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Before approaching the matter of your letter in 
serial order, if you will permit me some general observations it 
will probably assist in the premises. 

Our association was not formed for evangelical purposes. We 
are not trying to convert the non-Catholics of Georgia to our 
faith. We wish them to understand what we believe, but do not 
expect them to believe as we do, though, of course, we could not 
be very earnest in our faith and not be glad when anyone agrees 
with us ; only, — agreement is not necessary to understanding. 

I hope you will accept this as a frank and true statement of 
our aims. I can gain nothing by deceiving you, and you nothing 
by suspecting me of deceit. Suspicion has no place in our inter- 
changes; it is a shield for ignorance, a sign of fear, uncertainty 
and doubt. It is the root of more misunderstandings in the 
world perhaps than any other one thing. And I abjure it. 

So you can take my word for it, man to man; we plead not 
for agreement, much less for surrender or compromise; but only 
that you understand us. Yours very truly, 

JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

While it may be impossible for non-Catholics and Roman Cath- 
olics to agree on matters of religious dogma to the extent that 
one may be willing to embrace the faith of the other, it goes 
without saying, that the questions submitted to the association 
were not for the purpose, primarily, of ascertaining what Cath- 
olics believe, from a theological standpoint, but rather, to what 
extent that church requires its members to strive to bring about 
conditions favorable to the Roman church, which would be detri- 



76 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

mental to the welfare of those who are not of that faith, and if 
they are in conscience bound to follow the teaching of the church 
where its "faith and practices" conflict with the Constitution of 
the United States. 

If a Roman Catholic is taught, by the priesthood on the author- 
ity of the pope, that a glass of wine and a plate of bread can be 
turned — every separate drop, and crumb — into the Body of the 
Living Christ, and that he must eat it to be saved, I am sure a 
non-Catholic would not object to that dogma; but if there is 
reason to believe, from the history and laws of the church, and 
the general ^attitude of Catholics to-day, that they are expected 
to exert themselves, and use such means as their superiors may 
designate, to force others to accept their faith, then it becomes 
necessary for Catholics to answer a question on that phase of the 
subject, and prove that such is not the case; and, for it to be 
a true answer, it must be founded upon the utterances of the one 
who had the power and authority to decree laws requiring this 
attitude on the part of the "faithful," that is, a pope or council 
of the church. 

Augusta, Ga., Sept. 24, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Having put by suspicion, we take up trust, — the 
practice, the habit, the necessity of trust. 

Trust is a distinctive mark of higher civilization, as suspicion 
is a mark of savagery. Its practice extends with intelligence, 
the habit grows with peace, the necessity presses with the multi- 
plication of social relations. Trust is the soul of the social body. 

You may trust one person, I another; you one faith, I another. 
But we both trust somebody, is the point, and because you do not 
trust what I trust should not cause one of us to think that the 
other is either crooked or crazy. And since none can live in so- 
ciety without trust, and it being contrary to the nature of things 
to compel TRUST, fellow- citizens must either respect each other 
or despise each other, and let it go at that. 

Of course, respect for each other, where it is possible, is much 
more sensible, comfortable, gentlemanlike, much more civilized, 
if you please, than the contrary sentiment, and we ought to cul- 
tivate it as much as we can, with due respect for ourselves. 

The bearing of these commonplace thoughts, where not obvious 
now, will appear later; in the meantime do not think I am trying 
to be pendantic. Very truly yours, 

JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

"Trust" is where one places confidence in the integrity, verac- 
ity, justice, and friendship of another; so, before you can exer- 
cise this noble sentiment, it is necessary to learn the past record 
— history — of the party or institution, the regard shown for 
veracity, intention, and objective of the one desiring to win 
"trust" — it must rest on merit. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 77 

Do people distrust the Roman Catholic church and its mem- 
bers? (The Roman church is composed of two factors, (1) the 
"Teaching Church" or Pope, and (2) the "Hearing Church" or 
laymen.) The Hearing Church is directed and governed by the 
Teaching Church, and if distrust attaches to a member thereof, it 
is because of his relation to the "Teacher" — the "Teacher" being 
responsible for the distrust, if it cannot be removed; yet the 
"Hearer" can not be blameless, unless it can be shown that he 
is not a party to th& intention of the teacher in spirit or in deed. 

If Roman Catholics are distrusted, is it merely because they 
are Catholics, or because they are a necessary part of a system 
whose written LAW, history, and declared objective render them 
unworthy of trust? 

Granting that the Roman church is viewed with suspicion — 
that its seeming friendliness toward the American democratic 
form of government and the free institutions and customs 
erected on the rights guaranteed by the supreme law of the 
land — then, it is logical to expect those supporting that system 
of religion to show, as far as they can, that such suspicion is not 
founded on fact and answer a fair question without equivocation, 
as a primary basis for meriting "trust." 

A cursory scansion of history's pages shows a black picture 
drawn years ago when the Roman church was the religion of 
State in France, "The Massacre on St. Bartholomew's Day," 
when the Huguenots — French Protestants — -"trusted" the Cath- 
olics; how was it repaid? Thousands of men, women and chil- 
dren slain in cold blood — all defenceless, unarmed! 

John Huss put his "trust" in the guarantee of a Catholic 
King's safe pass-port to attend the Council of Constance, which 
council passed a decree to the effect that Catholics were to "Keep 
no faith with heretics" — which has never been repealed — and 
Huss was burnt at the stake by the church, to the everlasting 
shame and disgrace of Emperor Sigsmund, because he, Huss, 
would not subscribe to all that the "Teaching" church "proposed 
for belief." 

The massacre of the Huguenots so pleased the pope of Rome 
that he had a special medal made in commemoration of the event 
— the German Kaiser also had a medal struck to perpetuate the 
glorious (?) deed of his subjects in sinking the Lusitania! 

Augusta, Ga., Sept. 25, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Now, a bit of logic. 

It sins against the law of correct thinking to argue from par- 
ticular cases to a general principle; to say, for example, that 
"because Catholics are obedient in a few things, therefore, they 
must be obedient in everything; or that because the pope is in- 
fallible in some things, therefore he must be infallible in all 
things. 



78 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

It offends logic also, to judge truth by error. Error is judged 
by truth. The examination and rejection of many errors may 
leave one still far from the truth of a question. The examina- 
tion and acceptance of the truth closes the matter and makes 
unnecessary the examination of errors in connection. 

Having accepted the Bible story of Creation as true, for in- 
stance, that dispenses with the necessity of reading the Book of 
the East, the Vedas, the Zenda Vesta, and many other mystical 
or fanciful accounts of the beginning of the world, to learn the 
truth about creation. Truth is one, exclusive, inexorable. 

We shall presently have use for these inflexible rules of right 
reason, Very truly yours, 

JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

M. O. C. 

COMMENT 

By the consideration of "particular cases" we determine 
whether a general principle is good or bad, or, establish a fact; 
to illustrate: we argue, from particular cases, that the general 
principle of the liquor traffic is bad; to Newton, the falling of the 
apple was a particular case, from which he argued the existence 
of a fixed principle; observing the particular case of steam issu- 
ing from the coffee-pot, Watts argued a general principle, which 
gave us our steam-cars. Were it not for particular cases demon- 
strating an hitherto unknown fact, we would forever remain 
ignorant of the "general principle." 

Mr. Farrell implies that Catholics are not obedient to the pope 
in all things, and that the pope is not supposed to be infallible 
in all things; if not obedient, they do not "trust" the pope, and 
should not object that non-Catholics distrust him in all things; 
but it can not be proved that Catholics are not required to be as 
obedient to the pope's fallible directing power — from which they 
get their law — as they are to his infallible definitive prerogative 
— from which they derive their faith: in the exercise of either 
power, he can require Catholics to do that which would cause 
resistance on the part of others, the invasion of their Constitu- 
tional rights, for instance — which is arguing from a particular 
case to a general principle. 

It is only by the closest examination, oftentimes, that truth 
may be distinguished from error, both in physical and spiritual 
things ; otherwise, it would be impossible for the devil to appear 
as an angel of light and deceive the very elect of God — and this 
is arguing from a particular case to a general principle. The 
Biblical injunction is, "try" or "examine" all things, and to "hold 
fast that which is good;" if error or things false did not exist, all 
would be correct or true, in which case there would be no 
necessity for an examination; for instance, an Indian, ignorant 
of relative values, would part with his wares for a piece of cut- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 79 

glass, or a negro relieved of his hard-earned money; and it is 
the unsophisticated only who would consider it unnecessary to 
examine a glittering, shimmering stone before investing in it; 
the thinking, studious, reasoning being knows there are false and 
true stones, so the "diamond" is put to the "test," and if the 
natural law does not convince his reason, he will not be duped 
into purchasing a worthless stone. 

If we accept the Bible story of Creation, we must necessarily 
believe that the Creator endowed Adam's race with reason; with- 
out that, man would be only as an animal in the world, indiffer- 
ent alike to the fact of creation, and its purpose, and he could 
in no manner be held responsible for his eternal destiny — 
no honest minded person will deny this proposition : we acknowl- 
edge the presence of sin in the world, and know that Truth and 
Error confront man at every step, which can be distinguished 
only by the exercise of reason and a knowledge of the Word of 
God. 

On the other hand, if one asserts that he is in possession of 
the Truth, and such assertion is questioned, a refusal to be ex- 
amined or to examine implies a doubt (1) that he is not sure he 
has the Truth, or (2) that while he believes God gave him the 
Truth, he is not certain that he was endowed with sufficient 
reason and intelligence to distinguish between error and Truth, 
and prefers to go along with what he has — it matters not if the 
stone is cut-glass, he is satisfied, so why worry? Moses furnished 
a logical example illustrative of this point: He was positive his 
was the only true God, but if he had failed to throw down his 
rod, which became a snake and swallowed the rods of the Egyp- 
tian Magicians, he could have argued with Paraoh until this 
day, and not have impressed him with unproved assertions. 
"Prove all things" demands the Bible of Reason. This is also 
arguing from a particular case to establish a general principle, 
and does not sin against the law of correct thinking — unless we 
agree with Leo XIII, who taught, by inference, that God did not 
endow man with the power or right to THINK and REASON. 

Elijah was sure he possessed the true religion, and did not 
hesitate to put it to the "test" before reasoning beings — in the 
examination, the pagan priests and people were overcome by 
Truth; David believed he had the true religion, and did not hesi- 
tate to attack Goliath with a sling and a little stone. Darkness 
can never destroy light, neither can error prevail against Truth; 
were this not true, Christ would not have come into the world, 
because the devil would have vanquished Him; but, because the 
devil was in the world, He came to overcome him and teach man 
how to do likewise. 

The pope of Rome says he possesses the Truth — in fact, is hold- 
ing the place of God Almighty on earth as Christ's Vice-Gerent, 



80 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

yet he dares any one of his cardinals, archbishops, bishops, 
priests or laymen to imitate Moses, Elijah, or David, and will 
not himself imitate the Christ! 

"The examination," says Mr. Farrell, "and acceptance of the 
truth closes the matter and makes unnecessary the examination 
of errors in connection. Having accepted the Bible story of 
creation, as true, for instance, that dispenses with the necessity 
of reading the Book of the East, the Vedas, the Zenda Vesta — " 

To a Catholic, that is good logic; it closes the matter to those 
who live and act under "authority" of superiors, but it means 
nothing to me, when I know Roman priests are supposed to be 
trained to preach Christ, yet spend six years more or less mem- 
orizing pagan literature: Homer, Socrates, Lycurgus, Alexan- 
der, Lucretia, Regulus, Virgil, Horace, Cicero, Tacitus, Caesar, 
Xenophon, Demosthenes, Brutus, Jupiter, Minerva, Mars, Diana 
and the like, which INDELLIBLY impress paganistic principles 
on the mind, then devote about six years wrestling with the 
"writings of the holy fathers," — whom they can not reconcile 
with each other — and then at ordination swear "I will never in- 
terpret Holy Scripture except according to the unanimous (!) 
consent of the holy fathers," * which oath effectually renders the 
Bible a "closed" book to both priest and people; it is in reality 
a "closed" book to Catholics, which cannot be opened or exam- 
ined except as directed by the pope; closed also by having to 
spend their time with the "fathers" and ancient paganism instead 
of the Bible. Do they find Christ in that literature, or Roman 
Catholicism in embryo? 

Do Protestants read this ancient literature? Certainly; but 
they also study the Bible: with the cut-glass placed beside the 
diamond, its scintillating beauty is proved, and its value demon- 
strated to the discerning mind by the comparison. 

The story of the Cross can not be learned from ancient pagan- 
ism, but from the Bible, a book apparently read less than any 
other in a priest's preparation to tell that "Story." 

Who makes the "examination" that "closes" a question to 
Catholics? The pope. If Roman Catholicism did not claim the 
right and try to enforce this principle relative to non-Catholics, 
there would be no grounds for friction; but that church teaches 
its members that they sin against "holy mother church" if they 
do not resent any discussion of questions pronounced "closed" by 
their pope, and time was, and the church now teaches in its law, 
that offenders should be haled before priestly tribunals and tor- 
tured. They can not now, in America, burn people at the stake 



* "Item sacram Scripturam juxta eum sensum, quern tenuit et tenet sancta 
mater Ecclesia, cujus est judicare de vero sensu et interpretatione sacrarum 
Scripturarum, admitto ; nee etiam umquam nisi juxta unanimem consensum 
Patrurn accipiam et interpretabor." 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 81 

for "opening" a matte? "closed" by the pope, but they show the 
sam& spirit of their fathers in the faith — not by meeting the is- 
sues in debate, but by boycott, slander, etc. I know of instances 
where these methods have been resorted to. Who is responsible 
for this? Priests of Rome, whose minds are submerged — owl- 
like in a forest — in the dense blackness of a "faith and practice" 
foisted on the world when the pope was supreme. Left to them- 
selves, Catholic laymen would be true friends, loyal citizens, and 
an asset to a country: America must reckon with the papal 
church. 

Augusta, Ga., Set. 26, 1917. 

Dear Sir : You say in the letter transmitting your paper that 
you "deem it the duty of every citizen, to investigate all ques- 
tions that may affect him, his family, or his neighbor, whether 
social, political, religious or otherwise." 

This statement means that you consider every citizen bound to 
examine into all matters, religious or otherwise, that affect his 
neighbor, which would seem to run counter to what might be 
termed the American principle of everybody minding his own 
business. 

I probably would not have caught this broad meaning, as you 
probably did not intend to say so much, had not your paper 
rather emphasized it in many places where you treat matters 
that touch Catholics only and have not even an indirect bearing 
on those outside the fold. 

Of which more later, this being merely to call your attention 
to the American rule that says, "Don't butt in." 

Very truly, 
JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

M. 0. C. 

COMMENT 

During the period of the world's darkest days, which, though, 
was the glorious noontide of the Roman church, it probably 
meant certain death for any person — from the king who held 
his throne and subjects by the grace of the pope — to investigate 
any question quoted from my letter in the first paragraph. Dur- 
ing the Dark Ages, rulers were little better than vassals of the 
pope; ruling as by "right divine," the pope considered it his 
prerogative to take care of all such matters, hence, neither king 
nor pope ever bothered himself in a broad sense with the ques- 
tion, "Am I my brother's keeper?" 

I cannot concur in the association's interpretation of what con- 
stitutes the "American principle." This being a democracy — 
where the people shape their own destiny, make their own laws 
which define where the rights of the one stop and the other's 
begin — no person is fit for citizenship, nor should it be granted, 
unless he uses his franchise, and also strives, for the advance- 
ment of the common interests of the country. This is the dis- 



82 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

tinguishing characteristic of freemen; it differentiates the con- 
dition always obtaining where the absolutism of "divine right" 
ruling popes and kaisers prevails, and if one is not interested in 
all those things which affect him and his neighbor, he may fit 
well into the scheme of paplism, but not into the, plan of Ameri- 
can democracy. 

No doubt the able writer for the association, being trained in 
parochial schools, believes he announced the correct American 
principle; but in the free schools of the State, pupils are taught 
that the destiny of the nation will be committed into their keep- 
ing; that each one is to become an integral part of the future 
governmental structure and, to be true to the best interests of 
themselves and the nation, they MUST understand and be inter- 
ested in every question that would affect society. Those not ap- 
preciating this doctrine, are as emery dust in the wheels of 
progress — they are as dumb brutes, to be driven hither and 
thither according to the will of a master; under such conditions, 
it becomes a crime to think, or to make known one's thoughts. 

My paper was addressed to the Catholic Laymen's Associa- 
tion on its published invitation — an association that was or- 
ganized, ostensibly, for the purpose of diffusing information, 
first-hand, as to what Catholics believe, their rights, etc.; no 
other sect or secret order maintains a bureau of this kind; they 
do not need it; so why should my paper not have a "broad" mean- 
ing, and treat of matters relative to Catholics only? No other 
people claiming to be citizens in America owe allegiance to a 
foreigner, who demands, as a matter of faith and practice, that 
they must strive to destroy the Constitution of the United States 
and supplant it with papal law; I know of no "church" except 
the Roman that would restrict those Constitutional rights or 
attempt to exert an influence to force the minds of citizens 
through the narrow groove carved by the will of a foreigner, who 
presumes to have the "divine right" to rule and govern the 
people of the universe; and his followers on this continent need 
not be surprised that questions are raised that relate to them 
exclusively as a sect, but which concern all other citizens. 

The association has defined certain "correct rules" of logic 
and thinking (see letter Sept. 25) ; it also invited, through the 
press and mails, questions on what Catholics believe; but it 
seems that if a question is propounded that is not found in the 
Catechism — although in the Corpus Juris (the official code of the 
church) — he violates the "American rule" which is, "Don't butt 
in." This may illustrate the "broad" papal principle, that you 
should not ask questions, even if the pope's church seems to in- 
vite them; evidently it is the duty of Romanists to leave all 
questions concerning their welfare in the hands of the "holy 
fathers," who prepare questions and their answers for the faith- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 83 

ful. Correct papal "logic" and "thinking" as I understand the 
proposition. 

The thirty-two questions asked the Catholic Lawmen's Asso- 
ciation were for the purpose of learning, if possible, the attitude 
of the papal church and its members to the principles of Ameri- 
canism as denned by the Constitution; that the association has 
utterly failed to answer any important question correctly, ac- 
cording to evidence secured from other sources, will be apparent 
from a perusal of the letters. In a way, however, the whole 
list is inadvertantly answered, by inference, in the second para- 
graph of Farrell's letter; the church teaches, and Catholics must 
believe, that it is fundamentally wrong and presumptuous for 
one to consider any question arising under faith and morals — 
which cover social, political, economic and religious matters— 
as they are questions which the pope "examines" for all the 
world, and then legislates for the purpose of enforcing his 
findings. 

I hold it to be self-evident that a person who does not feel 
and manifest a personal interest in all those questions is tem- 
peramentally, if not mentally, incapacitated to properly dis- 
charge the duties devolving upon American citizens, especially if 
it can be proved that such person is DIRECTED by a FOR- 
EIGNER who claims temporal or spiritual jurisdiction over 
him, as there is bound to be a conflict sooner of later between 
the requirements of the Constitution and the will of the for- 
eigner. I believe it will be conclusively shown herein that one 
owing a dual allegiance is incompetent to sit on juries, or in any 
manner assist in making or administering the laws of a demo- 
cratic country. This, I know, is a "broad" assertion; but not 
more so than the above inference demands. 

If, in the course of time, owing to the indifference of those 
whose duty it is to defend them, the public schools of this coun- 
try should be controlled by the papal church, everyone would be 
trained in the papal idea as to what constitutes "correct" think- 
ing and "right" rules of logic, which would indeed be an ideal 
condition for the Church of Rome. Can it be true that the 
Roman Catholic schools in America are thus training millions 
of children, who are to have a voice in the affairs of this nation? 
We shall see, as we progress with these letters. 

Augusta, Ga., Sept. 29, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Regarding the Index — 

You seem to imagine that Catholics read the Index every morn- 
ing; that they all have pocket editions which they must consult 
every time they see a newsboy coming. 

Had you ever thought how much simpler it would be for the 
church, if her "intention" were what you seem to think, instead 



84 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

of pointing out to her children what alone they should NOT read, 
for her to specify what alone they should read? 

When one wishes to CONTROL a person, and not leave that 
person free, one does not say "Don't do this, or this, or this;" 
but "DO that, or that, or that." When one wishes to direct a 
person, however, yet leave that person free, one pursues exactly 
the opposite course, specifying just what is not to be done and 
leaving all matters not specified open to the choice of the indi- 
vidual. This latter is the way the Index works. Catholics are 
free to read anything not specified in its 'rules' and prohibited. 
Before you can condemn the Index, therefore, as being opposed 
to knowledge, you must know that the particular matter it speci- 
fies is necessary to knowledge. 

If the converse were true; if Catholics were not allowed to 
read anything unless it be found on the Index, you might con- 
demn it off-hand, as we condemn Mohammed for burning the 
Alexandrian library on the theory: "If the books contain the 
truth, it is in the Koran, and they are useless; if not the truth, 
they are worse than useless." 

Now, with these obviously correct principles in mind, will you 
be good enough to point out a single book on the Index that is 
necessary to the full knowledge of any useful subject? 

If you cannot do this, your condemnation of the Index is with- 
out reason. Very truly. 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

The pope of Rome declares he is the supreme teacher of all 
that pertains to "FAITH AND MORALS." Everything that 
is worth while in life pertains to faith and morals; to have and 
hold a vice-like grip on his subjects, throughout the whole world, 
and to enable him to DIRECT, CONTROL and DETERMINE 
their faith and morals, the pope established the Index; from 
early infancy on through life the principle of the Index is im- 
pressed upon the mind and conscience of a Catholic by priest 
and parochial school teacher, which forbids reading any book or 
periodical treating of any question relative to faith and morals, 
and, consequently, a newsboy, or a book dealer, will never make 
a sale to a Catholic if the paper or book discusses any question 
involving faith and morals ; certainly, a Catholic will not buy it, 
if therein a non-Catholic discusses the religion of the pope. 

Not only has the pope specifically indicated what Catholics 
"should NOT read," but he has also indicated what they may 
read. The Index Ldbrorum Prohibitorum contains the list of 
books which Catholics can NOT read, while the Index Expurga- 
torious is a list of books which may be read in expurgated edi- 
tions only, that is "trimmed" to suit what the pope conceives to 
be for the best interest of Catholic faith and morals; the most 
objectionable feature of the Index, however, is to be found in 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 85 

the Canon Law on the subject, which absolutely forbids Cath- 
olics to have in their possession or read publications of any 
character that treat on any phase of faith and morals without 
first submitting such to the censorship demanded by the RULES 
of the Index; to make sure Catholics have permission to read any 
given publication, the imprimatur of a designated church 
authority must be displayed therein, which indicates to Cath- 
olics that they may read it. If this does not make the church 
say "DO that, or that, or that," I admit a misunderstanding of 
the "intention" of the Index; Leo taught: "What we are bound 
to DO, and what we are NOT to do," are laid down by the pope. 

The papal church condemned as heretical and unscriptural the 
Copernican theory of astronomy — after the world had accepted 
the teaching of scholars for two hundred years, the Roman 
church withdrew its condemnation, and that theory was then 
"open" for Catholic investigation ! Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarni 
and Galileo knew more than the pope, which was unfortunate 
for them, but it took that church two hundred years to acknowl- 
edge it. Joan of Arc was burnt as a heretic, but later made a 
saint by the church that put her to death! 

The commands of God say, "DO THIS," and "DON'T DO 
THAT." Having created and endowed man with Reason — giving 
him a mind to think, and a will to do, which makes him a free 
moral agent- — God indicates what course a man must follow to 
please Him; unlike the pope, however, He has never attempted 
to FORCE or COERCE His creature; man must accept or reject. 

I can see no essential difference between the Mohammedan 
reason for burning the Alexandrian library and the papal reason 
for the Index; and, instead of pointing out "a single book on 
the Index," I point out the Index itself. At the beginning of the 
Dark Ages a library of priceless literature was destroyed by 
the pope, after which Reason was locked in human hearts, and 
it was death to let the pope know the mind contemplated any- 
thing save what he desired. 

God made man in His own image, endowing him with Reason 
and the five senses to enable him to make a successful pilgrimage 
on earth and safeguard the destiny of his never-dying soul ; there- 
fore, man is rightly termed the masterpiece of God's handiwork. 
The Index presumes either to improve on God's work, or to com- 
plete what He had improperly left unfinished: an animal is 
DIRECTED by a blind-bridle, not by Reason; by the bridle, it is 
turned or driven in any direction to suit the purpose of the driver, 
the blind being to prevent it from becoming frightened at harm- 
less objects which it cannot understand, as well as to prevent it 
from becoming interested in things that do not interest its 
DRIVER; the INDEX is the BLIND-BRIDLE the pope of 



86 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Rome places on the intellect, and his decrees are the lines by 
which he directs his subjects. 

The papal Index fetters man's reasoning and intellectual fac- 
ulties ; it seeks to defeat the very purpose for which Reason was 
given. To me, it appears as if the pope has attempted to build 
an impenetrable wall around the Intellect to prevent man from 
knowing both good and evil, which necessarily destroys indi- 
vidual, personal responsibility — or free moral agency — which 
renders man objectively nothing more in the sight of God than 
a stone or a tree or an animal. God recognized the principle of 
free moral agency in the Garden of Eden, when He let Adam 
and Eve decide for themselves whether they would obey Him or 
the devil; and if God made an error in establishing this particu- 
lar principle, I am sure an Italian pope cannot reverse it after the 
lapse of five thousand years. In choosing to obey the devil rather 
than God, Adam separated the Creature from his Creator; to 
bridge the chasm was the purpose of the Christ on Golgotha: 
the Index appears to be a substitute for the Cross and Hill of 
Skulls. 

A marked characteristic of paganism is, it seeks to destroy 
that which is not of it, and those who refuse submission to its 
code. In the "General Decrees Concerning the Prohibition of 
Books," the Constitution of Pope Leo XIII, c. 3, dec. 8, I find 
the following as to reading: 

"All versions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, 
made by non-Catholics, are prohibited." (39) : "Censors . . . 
should put away all attachment to their particular country, 
family, school, or institute . . . they must keep nothing before 
their eyes but the Dogmas of Holy Church, and the common 
Catholic doctrine as contained in the decrees of General Councils, 
the Constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, and the unanimous 
teaching of the Doctors of the Church." 

According to this Constitution, defining the"rules"of the Index, 
that governs every Catholic writer or censor, the pope attempts 
to close — and may as well burn, so far as Romanists are con- 
cerned — every book in the world, except those written or cen- 
sored according to this decree; so vital is this censorship, that 
even a newspaper will be boycotted if it permits a discussion of 
faith and morals in its columns — especially if it be from a com- 
parative viewpoint. 

At ordination a priest swears to interpret Holy Scripture ac- 
cording to the "unanimous" consent of the holy fathers — hence 
to him the Bible is a "closed" book; to the person who depends 
upon the priest for spiritual direction and forgiveness of sin, the 
Bible has no meaning; so in truth, as is taught by the "holy" 
fathers, the Roman church may dispense with the Bible alto- 
gether yet be Christian by following the "Traditions of Men," 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 87 

which have been elevated to the same plane for veneration as 
the Word of God — the Bible! the one book on the Index "that 
is necessary to the full knowledge of any useful subject" in life, 
a knowledge of which Catholics can not have except as it is 
sifted through papal censorship. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 1, 1917. 

Dear Sir: If Catholics are satisfied with their belief and prac- 
tices, you ought to be satisfied without them. 

Except, of course, insofar as they affect you in your social re- 
lations and rights, which is not the case in such matters as con- 
fession, convents, celibacy of priests, and others that you treat. 

We use the confessional; you are not asked to use it. Our 
daughters enter the convents, yours are not asked to enter them. 
The priests minister to our spiritual wants, not yours. If we are 
not displeased with these things, you ought not to be worried. If 
you are content without them, pray let us be contnent with them. 

Where our belief and practices touch matters common to all 
citizens, all have an interest and a duty, as you say. 

And we are ready to stand up and be counted. 
Very truly yours, 
JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

The association does not consider such matters as the confes- 
sional, convents, priestly celibacy, etc., as questions that affect 
society in common, which is equivalent to saying that, as long 
as my family and my neighbor are not in the immediate zone of, 
or suffering from, some malignant disease, which may become 
epidemic if not restricted, I should be satisfied. Mr. Farrell has 
advanced that idea before, as being the American principle which 
says, "Don't butt in." 

If the Roman church could, she would force all people in 
America to make use of those "means of grace" above mentioned, 
and, with our children in parochial schools, in less than a cen- 
tury this republic would be a candidate for bottom place against 
Roman Catholic Austria, Spain, Bulgaria, Mexico, Cuba, Ire- 
land, and other countries where the pope presumes to DIRECT 
the minds of men. 

No person can come out of the confessional as free as before 
entering it; no one can come out of it, according to priests who 
quit that church, as pure as when they went in, for the very 
simple reason, among others, that no form of idolatry can aid 
in the advancement of faith and morals: "Thou shalt not bow 
down thyself to them or serve them" was heard above the thun- 
ders of Mount Sinai; Rome forces her devotees to bow down and 
confess to a creature, while in doing penance they are serving 
that creature, thus vitiating the Atoning Blood of Christ; how- 
ever, I make no special point on these questions of Catholic faith 



88 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

and practices; if Catholics do not object to these things, so far 
so good; but history and the condition of other peoples to-day 
show the evil nature of these matters on society as a whole, 
where they know more about the pope than they do of God, and 
I and my fellow-citizens are concerned with the fact that the 
same authority that enjoins these dogmas and decrees also de- 
clares it has the right to force me and mine to submit to and 
observe them, under pain of eternal damnation, as well as re- 
moval from the earth by death. 

It is a strange fatality that a consumptive resents the sugges- 
tion that he is suffering with a disintegrating malady, and that 
he can spread it! Others recognize it by its history and its 
results, and know it is deadly and contagious. 

The confessional, convents and celibacy are amony the strong- 
est links forged in the chain that binds subjects to the papal 
propaganda for a morld-wide supremacy. Every Roman Cath- 
olic is committed to this papal ideal and its consummation ; 
therefore I unhesitatingly state that I believe the Roman church 
to be a menace to civil and religious freedom in America, 
which is the foundation of my opposition to those articles of faith 
and practice, for, if the pope decrees their observance, Catholics 
must obey; if they believe they are right, they are bound to strive 
for their propagation; and in this, they become and forever re- 
main a disturbing element in the political and civil affairs of 
the nation. 

"We are ready to stand up and be counted," said Mr. Farrell ; 
very well, stand up, Mr. Farrell; and, as you seem to be at the 
head of the class, I will ask you to turn to the "Thirty-Second 
Edition" of the "Manual of Christian Doctrine" "Comprising 
Dogma, Moral, and Worship, Authorized English Edition, 'Re- 
vised in Accordance with the Code of 1918,' " and read aloud so 
that all Americans can hear you, what your pope requires you 
to "stand" for, as found on page 132. Hear him,, my fellow- 
countrymen: ' "Question 120: Has the State the right and the 
duty to proscribe schism and heresy?" and the answer is: "Yes, 
it has the right and the duty to do so both for the good of the 
nation and for that of the faithful themselves; for religious 
unity is the principal foundation of social unity." ' 

Very clearly read and stated, Mr. Farrell; while you are up, 
turn to the word "Proscribe" in the dictionary and give its defi- 
nition, so that all America can hear you: "To condemn, as to 
death; to put out of the protection of the law; to outlaw; to 
denounce and condemn; to interdict; to prohibit." Who is it that 
is to be put out of the protection of the law — to be outlawed? 
Any one who refuses to believe in the confessional, convents, 
priestly celibacy, etc., or any other law or dogma of the church, 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 89 

in the interest of all which the association declares "we are 
ready to stand up and be counted." So Catholics say, so the 
pope teaches, so I believe. 

These issues will receive further consideration as we progress. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 3, 1917. 

Dear Sir : You intimate in your letter of .transmission that 
Catholics are "barred by the Index from reading the history of 
your (our) church, its laws, theology, etc." 

How could you entertain such an idea? It is such an obvious, 
striking error that I cannot think you could pass it as even an 
approach to the truth. Books containing what some enemy de- 
clares to be Catholic theology or Canon Law or Church History, 
may be prohibited to Catholics; but, my dear sir, that is only 
barring us from reading what is NOT the history, laws and 
theology of the church. 

Or do you imagine that the authorities of the church do not 
know her history, laws and theology? You do not think they try 
to conceal them, for how, then, could her enemies secure them? 
And who could conceal history, or how could laws be law if not 
published? Not in respect to a handful of ignorant men and for 
a few years merely, but in regard to hundreds of millions among 
whom are the most brilliant in the world or in history, and for 
century after century now for nearly two thousand years? Why, 
the notion is wild. 

No, my friend, you haven't got the idea of the Index at all. 
You are not acquainted with its purpose, its content or its use. 
And to Catholics who are familiar with all these, the labored 
argument based on mere suspicion and running like a poisoned 
stream through your paper, sounds like a child describing a 
bugaboo. 

More on this subject to-morrow. 

Very truly yours, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

M. 0. C. 

COMMENT 

The above letter treats of the Index; I have previously given 
it some attention, and will do so from time to time; an under- 
standing of its principle in action will make answers to ques- 
tions in this letter clear. Here, therefore, I will offer a few sug- 
gestions only in passing. 

"Books containing what some enemy declares to be Cath- 
olic Theology or Canon Law or Church History," says Farrell, 
but that "is NOT—" then asks "Do you think they (the 'author- 
ities') try to conceal them, for how then, could her enemies se- 
cure THEM?" It is enlightening to note that he first says such 
"IS NOT" Catholic history, etc., and then acknowledges it is by 
asking "Do you think they try to conceal them, for how, then, 
could her enemies secure them?" 



90 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

When I refer to "Catholics" any one knows I am alluding to 
the "Hearing Church" — lay members, not the pope and his hier- 
archy which constitute the "AUTHORITY" of that church; and 
the crux of the main contention lies right here: that what the 
church "authorities" know is one thing, what is made known to 
laymen another; laymen do not know what the church can re- 
quire of them, as found in her authenticated law substantiated 
by Catholic historians; like the system of authority that ob- 
tained in Europe before the Great War among various kaisers, 
who KNEW what they intended to do, while their SUBJECTS 
were kept in ignorance. Yet they had to respond to the wills of 
their "divine right" rulers. Had the peoples been given an op- 
portunity to express themselves after thoroughly investigating 
the issues involved, there is little doubt in my mind but that 
there would have been a few '"divine right" rulers hung and 
millions of homes made glad because of the peace that that 
would have assured the world. 

As typical of "history" writen for Roman Catholics by the 
church "authorities," I submit the following, from the "Short 
History of Religion," forming a part of Jesuit Deharbe's "Full 
Catechism of the Catholic Religion:" 

"Several heretical and schismatical doctrines had already been 
broached at different times and in different places; they had, 
however, soon disappeared. But now, BY GOD'S PERMIS- 
SION, some new heretics arose, and gained many followers by 
CUNNING AND FRAUD. They impudently left the church, 
and formed separate and vast communions or sects, which were 
mostly named after their founders; as the Arians, Nestorians, 
Eutychians, Pelagians, etc. These heretics often succeeded in 
gaining the favor of princes and emperors. ... In the same 
way as the Apostles assembled in order to settle . . such 
differences as had arisen in matters of religion . . the 
bishops of the church, assembled under the presidency of the 
pope, or of his legates, consulted about the heretical doctrines, 
and then condemned them. Such an assembly of bishops is called 
a General Council; and the decisions of such a council in matters 
of faith, when confirmed by the pope, are infallible, because they 
proceed from the Church. . . One of the most famous coun- 
cils is that of Nice . . . held in 325. Three hundred and eighteen 
bishops were assembled there. . . . They unanimously con- 
demned the impious doctrine of Arius. . . Although this sect, 
called Arians, was at that time very powerful, the Church, by 
her solemn decision, had set the seal of reprobation on it, and 
consequently it was gradually to VANISH FROM THE FACE 
OF THE EARTH. The SAME sentence of condemnation was 
passed on all the other heresies that sprung up in subsequent 
ages; and however hard the conflicts were in which the Church 
had to engage, she has always come off victorious." 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 91 

To Catholics, THAT is Catholic "history;" the "enemies" of 
the "church" go into detail and explain all the crimes and 
butcheries of non-Catholics ordered by that church, and show 
how the various sects, although "powerful" and hence numerous, 
were caused to VANISH FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH, 
according to the teaching of the "holy fathers"; such is NOT 
history to Catholics, not being censored by "authority" of the 
church; the average Romanist learns, from "Catholic" history 
that by some fortuitous concourse of atoms, heretics disappeared 
from the earth, and are satisfied; and with the INDEX, the 
Roman Catholic AUTHORITIES prevent laymen from learn- 
ing the CRIMINAL record of the Italian Institution covering 
almost two thousand years. Like subjects of the German Kaiser, 
it is theirs to do, not to question. 

I assert, and believe I can prove, that the authorities of the 
Italian church are guilty of concealing from laymen what they 
have a natural right to know. We have just read that decrees 
issued by a council composed of bishops, or the pope, are infalli- 
ble, binding a Catholic in conscience; now, everything that has 
ever been decreed or denned by the popes and councils is epito- 
mized in the BISHOP'S Oath; it contains the warrant for every- 
thing that the papal church has or will ever require of laymen; 
this OATH is found in the "Pontificate Romanum" one of the 
principal Liturgical books of the Italian church, which book is in 
the hands of EVERYONE in AUTHORITY in the Roman 
church throughout the world; it explains what the church re- 
quires of Catholics along certain lines, which "authorities" must 
know; but because it is kept out of the hands of laymen, being 
true Catholic teaching though "prohibited" to laymen they will 
never know what they are expected to do in the name of "relig- 
ion" until like the Germans the command to act is sounded by 
their Italian head — and those "bound in conscience" to "divine 
right" leaders never fail to respond: the German and Austrian 
subjects, for instance, as also the papal subjects, the Catholic 
Irish of Ireland. Of course, there have always been traitors to 
every cause; so, in a conflict with the papal church in America, 
should the time ever come for the pope to exact the requirements 
of the bishop's oath, there may be some members of the papal 
church who would be true to the country instead of the pope; 
that, however, is mere speculation. 

I present, in the Appendix, my correspondence with a Roman 
Catholic of Macon, Ga., relative to the bishop's oath. Not to re- 
peat too often, I suggest that that correspondence be referred to 
at this time; it proves the point at issue: that by the operation 
of the Index in conjunction with the exercise of "authority" by 
superiors, the Catholic priesthood under the pope DOES CON- 



92 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

CEAL from laymen questions vitally connected with the tenets 
of their faith, and also the fact that if a TRUE Romanist se- 
cures knowledge that the pope wishes to conceal, it is almost 
impossible to get him to acknowledge it. I refer to the corres- 
pondence with Mr. John J. McCreary; in attempting to extricate 
himself from an "unlawful" situation, his antics were pitiful, 
indeed. That incident, wherein he was "called" in to render "ex- 
pert" testimony as a witness, illustrates how faithful a Catholic 
is to his pope, and if Catholics attempt to conceal facts, as Mr. 
McCreary evidently did, the presumption is logical that they 
approve of what the church requires, which presumption remains 
with them as long as they are subject to the bishop's oath, and 
they are subject to it as long as they are members of the Pope's 
church. This "particular case" is sufficient to establish a "gen- 
eral rule;" but it is not standing alone: the Catholic Laymen's 
Association of Georgia furnished another example showing what 
is meant by being "bound in conscience" to obey the decrees, 
mandates, etc., of the pope; he decreed excommunication against 
those taking part in debates, and that Association would not 
debate, yet never revealed the fact that it COULD NOT, which 
fact I established from information secured elsewhere, without 
its assistance. 

I believe I have made it clear that the pope prevents Catholics 
from reading on any subject mentioned in Farrell's letter unless 
such book or treatise has first been censored by the church supe- 
riors; and who is it that presumes to pass "supreme judgment 
upon all our concerns? An Italian! Who revises every impor- 
tant detail of ecclesiastical policy? An Italian! Who is to legis- 
late for all our social needs? An Italian! Who is to define what 
we must believe to be saved? An Italian!" Has the effect of 
Italian popery on the world been such success as warrants all 
nations to yield pre-eminence to him? How does his supression 
of free inquiry affect the world? "Listen! Pope Pius granted, 
on petition of the General of the Dominican order, an indulgence 
of forty thousand five hundred years, ONCE A YEAR, to such 
as merely carry the rosary beads in their pockets!" High honors 
are paid to "twenty different bodies of John the Baptist, eight- 
een of St. Paul, six heads of Ignatius Martyr, sixty fingers of 
St. Jerome, forty holy shrouds, and seven hundred thorns from 
the sacred crown." This catalogue of facts and "sacred relics" 
could be greatly lengthened, but what's the use? All those things 
are true to Catholics: they have "true" histories teaching that 
they are true, because they were written according to the RULES 
of the Index, and no member of the church will read what an 
"enemy" writes refuting those truths, because to Catholics it "is 
NOT" history, having been written contrary to said "rules"! 

That there have been, and are, many brilliant minds in the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 93 

Catholic church, I admit; but am rather inclined to the opinion 
that they were so despite the church instead of because of it. 

Pope Innocent III, in the Fourth Lateran Ecumenical Council, 
legislated as follows: 

"Let Secular rulers be warned, and if necessary compelled by 
ecclesiastical censure, to take public oath to do all in their power 
to exterminate from their territory all manner of heretics — 
(universos haereticos exterminare) — who shall have been so des- 
ignated by the church. This oath every man shall be obliged to 
take who enters upon any office of civil power. . . And if a 
secular ruler, after due warning by the church, neglects to purge 
his territory from the filth of heresy (ab haeretica foeditate), 
let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan archbishop of 
the province. If thereafter he fails to come to a better mind, 
let this within the space of one year be told to the pope, to the 
end that the Supreme Pontiff may declare that ruler's subjects 
absolved from their allegiance, and his territory open to seizure 
by Catholics, who shall possess it absolutely once they have de- 
stroyed the heresy there existing. . . Catholics who engage 
in a crusade for the extermination of heretics shall be granted 
that indulgence and that holy privilege which are bestowed upon 
Crusaders to the Holy Land." 

That decree throws some light on Deharbe's "Short History of 
Religion," solves the mystery surrounding the admonition of Leo 
XIII to Cardinal Gibbons, not to adopt any method of reclaiming 
heretics save that which ANTIQUITY had STAMPED WITH 
ITS APPROVAL, and endorsed BY THE CHURCH, and makes 
his meaning clear where he alludes to those who destroy "Papal" 
truth: that it would be INHUMAN to let them go UNHARMED 
— -all of which is provided for in the bishop's oath, that I tried 
to get McCreary to verify. 

If "suspicion," like a "poisoned stream," is "running through 
my paper," as Mr. Farrell says, is not that "poisoned stream" 
flowing from a real source? And can it be termed "suspicion?" 

A heretic is one who does not believe the pope has a special 
commission from God to rule and direct the world; a heretic is 
one who would, in a word, rather look into the matter of so many 
"true" heads, etc., before venerating one; a heretic is one who 
does not believe carrying the scapular tied around the neck, or 
the rosary beads in the pocket, will keep off evil spirits in this life 
and release a soul from thousands of years of purgatorial fires 
after death. 

Is my "notion" so very "wild" in view of the above few facts, 
which are predicates of the papal Index and its "rules"? 

Do Catholic laymen know that, as members of the Italian 
church, they are committed to the oath of the bishop which reads, 
in part: "Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our Lord the Pope, 



94 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

or his aforesaid successors, I will, to the utmost of my power, 
persecute and make war on?" If they know, they are taught by 
the church to believe that it is God's will, and that where the 
church has carried out this oath in the past, it has been in re- 
talliation for attacks and persecutions of Catholics by non- 
Catholics or Protestants. That this teaching of the church is 
false to the core, is proved by the fact that there is not a Christian 
sect in the world that has ever legislated as has the papal church, 
neither can any document be produced wherein the inhuman line 
of action is required as found in the "Pontificate Romanum" 
containing the bishop's oath. Some who are ignorant of natural 
forces and laws say that if Protestants were in absolute control, 
they would also persecute; if the did, they would cease to be 
Christian; on the other hand, the premise is wrong: a field com- 
pletely covered with fig trees would never produce thorns — that 
would be contrary to NATURE and her fixed law; a field lit- 
erally covered with briars will be filled with thorns; you may 
devote unlimited time and effort trimming the thorns off — with 
enough help you could make that a field of thornless briars — 
but you CAN NOT change the NATURAL law: if you let it 
alone, the thorns will come back. 

The powerful influence of Protestantism has "trimmed" the 
papal institution of some of her NATURAL THORNS, but 
Protestantism can not change the NATURE of that institution 
as revealed by its laws, history, dogmas, theology and the 
bishop's oath. 

Where plants of different natures are placed in a field, one 
will have to be removed before the other will fulfill its purpose; 
the contest between the papal intsitution and Protestanism is 
just now claiming the attention of an enlightened age — and one 
must be destroyed, so far as America is concerned. 

It would be interesting to know how many Roman Catholic 
fathers, mothers, husbands, wives and sweethearts have a pop- 
ular edition of the Roman Catholic theology by Ligouri, wherein 
he admits that his obscene doctrine for the confessional has 
caused many priests to lose both God and their souls ! How many 
know that popes Gregory XV and Benedict XIV endeavored to 
correct the horrible conditions brought about by the confessional? 
How many Catholic families have histories telling how Bishops 
Keating, Doyle and others concurred with St. Thomas of Villa- 
nona, who said the effect of the confessional on many priests was 
to "send thmselves and sinners down careless into hell?" As to 
sacred theology, how many Catholics have carefully studied the 
effect of Liguori's "Glories of Mary" on human conduct? How 
many laymen have a copy of the "Pontificale Romanum?" 

If any reader thinks, with the association, that my "notion" 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 95 

of the Index is "wild," go to a Catholic laymen and ask to see a 
copy of the Pontificate. Ask any Roman priest, or superior of a 
convent, or dean of a Catholic college; try to borrow a copy! 
In writing off-hand, to Catholic book-dealers for a copy, one in- 
formed me he was out of them, while another stated he did 
not have any on hand and, as they were printed in Germany, he 
would not be able to get a supply until after the war! 

I can not do more than offer suggestions, that, like straws, 
point which way the wind blows; to attempt to treat at length 
every question concerning Catholicism would require many vol- 
umes, but I think the general "intention" of the papal church 
will be sufficiently discussed as to warrant the opinion that no 
American citizen can become allied with such an institution that 
pledges its votaries to persecute those who will not see things 
through the pope's eyes. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 4, 1917. 

Dear Sir: You imagine, for instance, that Catholics do not 
know that certain popes were immoral men, "very immoral" if 
you like ; that the confessional and convent life have been abused 
by wicked men and women; and such things. 

But we do ; only there is not near so much of that as the pro- 
fessional bigot claims, if that is is material here. You will find 
in the Catholic Encyclopedia, for example, which is in probably 
a hundred thousand Catholic homes in this country, and in 
numerous public libraries, and which is available and free to all, 
that Alexander VI was a wicked man, and John XIII "a coarse, 
immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken 
of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the 
subject of general odium." (See Vol. VIII, p! 426, Cath. Ency.) 

We do not make a specialty of bad popes, however, nor of all 
the purient details of their lives; but prefer wholesome things, 
for who handles pitch will become defiled. It is enough for us 
to know that any pope can sin, any priest can, any nun can, and 
some have. If we knew of any place in this world where men and 
women cannot sin, or do not, we would shut up shop and flock 
there. 

In the light of human nature and considering human history 
through the long sweep of time, have you any suggestions on 
this score? Very truly, 

JJF/MC. J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

M. 0. C. 

COMMENT 

Perhaps it may be well for me to say right here that I have had 
no special desire to discuss Roman Catholicism from a theologi- 
cal standpoint; but, since it is practically impossible to separate 
the political nature of the papal church from its spiritual claims 
— its determination to dominate in temporal and civil affairs as 
well as in spiritual — it behooves one to consider what has been 



96 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the effect of Romanism on those who are committed to it; be- 
cause, to understand its religious effect should be the determin- 
ing factor of one's attitude to the system. 

It is immaterial to me and to the issue, regarding what Cath- 
olics may know concerning their popes ; but one fact is material : 
if a priest concludes he can not serve God and his country in 
that capacity, leaves the church, and attempts to explain why to 
the people; or, if any other person takes the evidence of such 
witnesses before the public, Roman Catholics actively oppose 
it, classing them "bigots" and bad men, scatter falsehoods against 
them, as was done in Macon when Rev. E. A. Jordan delivered 
his series of lectures on Catholicism; a defamatory pamphlet 
was circulated against him — but no layman nor priest was man 
enough to defy the pope's decree, and meet him in debate, to 
substantiate the charges against him, and discuss the questions 
he presented. This is not an isolated case ; the Knights of Colum- 
bus would not meet Wm. Black on the platform before the people 
of Marshall, Texas; but they could go to his hotel room and do 
him to death. Not making a "specialty of purient facts," the 
Roman church had Black killed so he could not disseminate them. 
That case illustrates also how the priesthood writes "history" 
for the "faithful." They kill everything of a damaging nature, 
and then place the Index between Romanists and the facts. 

A tree is known by its fruit ; if its source be muddy, the stream 
will be muddy; if it can be proved that a large percentage of the 
popes were considered bad men by Catholic historians; if the 
religion of the Roman Catholic church did not have the desired 
moral effect upon its head, the pope, so that, like Paul, he could 
say, "Follow me even as I follow Christ," then the world should 
not want to be DIRECTED by him — Americans, at least, will 
object. 

There were many Catholic historians and priests who loved 
their church, but were not blind to the defects of those who de- 
creed its religion or abused it; some of those men tried to reform 
it from within, and died in the church and were not condemned 
by it, while others realized that there was no hope to redeem it, 
and quit; they are now called "enemies" of the church. 

For my own satisfaction, I have given attention to the lives 
of the popes ; I find they do not accord with my idea of what one 
should be who claims to hold upon this earth the place of God 
Almighty; and I did not get my information from the "enemies" 
of the church, but from such historians as Cardinal Baronius, 
de Cormenin, Platina, Belarmine, and others. From these histo- 
rians was prepared the following condensed summary of the lives 
of the popes. In this abbreviated history no mention is made of 
the popes who made no special "record." Beginning after St. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 97 

Peter, whom the papal church can not prove was ever in Rome 
or acted as pope, this is the record: 

ABRIDGED HISTORY OF THE POPES 

Pontian, A. D. 233 : Banished, brought back and put to death. 

Anterus, 238: Put to death under Emperor Maximine. 

Fabian, 240 : Put to death by Emperor Decius. 

Cornelius, 254: Put to death by Emperor Decius. 

Lucius I, 255: Put to death by Emperor Valerinus. 

Sixtus II, 260: Put to death by Emperor Valerian. 

Marcellinus, 296 : Abjured the Christian religion. 

Marcellus I, 304:^ Made to groom horses; died at this work. 

Eusebius, 309: 'Banished by Maxentius. 

(Period of the Constantine Forgeries.) 

Liberius, 352: Exiled by Constans. 

Liberius and Felix II denied Deity of Christ; are now 
"saints." 

In 360 the partisans of Damascus and Ursin each elected a 
pope; a bloody fight ensued resulting in the death of 137 people; 
Damascus triumphed, being elevated to the chair of Peter by 
violence. 

Innocent I, 402: Granted permission to offer sacrifice to an- 
cient idols; fled in terror from Rome. 

Sixtus III, 432: Hypocrite; morally unclean. 

Leo I (The Great), 440: Persecuted the Manicheans, who 
originated the "heresy" of "half communion," now practiced as 
"true" religion by the papal church. 

Anastasius II, 496: Died suddenly; said to have been poisoned 
by priests. 

Symmachus, 498: 

Lawrence, 498: Two men consecrated pope the same day; 
King Theodoric decided in favor of Symmachus. 

John I, 523: Charged with treason; died in prison. 

Silverius, 536: Banished; starved; strangled to death. 

Vigilius, 538: Charged with killing a child with a club for 
resisting his "caresses"; Empress Theodora had him flogged; 
died from poison; is now a saint. 

Pelagius I, 555: Accused of poisoning Vigilius to secure for 
himself the "Chair" of Peter. 

Gregory I (The Great), 590: He wrote: "I am bold to say 
that, whoever accepts, or affects the title of universal bishop has 
the pride and character of anti-Christ . . arrogates to him- 
self a distinguished superiority, and arises, as it were, upon the 
ruins of the rest." 

Sabinianus, 604: Avaricious; cruel to poor; assassinated by 
band of priests. 

BONIFACE III, 606: This is the FIRST POPE, or Universal 
Bishop, as the term is now understood; this title was conferred 
by the bloody-handed monster and murderer, Emperor Phocas. 

Adeodatus, 615: Under this pope it is claimed the documents 



98 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

known as the "Isidorean Decretals" first appeared; these were 
spurious decrees said to have originated with Bishop Isidore of 
Seville, Spain; they were increased from time to time, forging a 
powerful chain over the priesthood and laity which culminated 
in establishing the supremacy of the pope in the church. So it 
appears that the title of pope was conferred by a murderer and 
retained by forgeries! 

Honorius I, 625: Decreed adoption of Monotheletic heresy, 
which was condemned by the Sixth General Council in 680. In 
this, we see an "infallible" pope being reversed by and "infalli- 
ble" council. 

Martin I, 649: Banished; died in exile. 

Sergius, 687: A very bad man. 

Zacharias I, 741 : Up to this time a pope's election had to be 
confirmed by the emperor; now, however, the church began to 
assert and exert "authority" over kings. 

Paul I, 757 : Noted as a great hunter of dead bones for "relics." 

Constantine II: Was driven into monastery; Philip, a monk, 
chosen pope, but was, on the next day, driven into a convent. 

Stephen IV, 768: A "holy terror;" assisted in the torture of 
his enemies and pointed out new victims. 

Leo III, 795: Priests attempted to kill him; cut out part of 
his tongue and greatly damaged his eyes. 

Paschal I, 817 : Instigated murder. 

Gregory IV, 827: Caused a rebellion against a king; a very 
bad man. 

Sergius II, 844: It is said that his name was "Os Porco," 
meaning "Hog Snout," which he changed after being made God's 
substitute on earth; some say this gave rise to the custom of 
changing the name when elected pope. 

Joan, Popess, 855: The Roman church now denies that a 
woman served as pope one year in disguise; however, Platina, a 
Catholic historian of the fifteenth century, being Librarian of 
the Vatican, had access to all its records; he wrote the history 
of the popess, calling her John VIII. 

Benedict III, 855: Was ousted by Priest Anastasius with 
troops; being successful, he declared himself pope. He was in 
turn dethroned by Benedict. It may be of incidental interest to 
state that this was about the second century of the Dark Ages. 

Nicholas I (The Great), 858: The Bishop of Cologne wrote 
him: "Rome is the residence of demons, and thou, pope, art its 
satan." 

Adrian II, 867: Married; had a beautiful daughter; the son 
of Bishop Arsenes ran away with her. Being persecuted, he 
killed the pope's wife and the girl. 

John VIII, 872: Political intriguer; seated and unseated tem- 
poral rulers; a Roman lady had him killed. 

Marinus I, 882 : Died from effects of nameless disease. 

Adrian III, 884: At this period, any crime would be com- 
mitted to serve, or secure, the "chair ' of Peter, or to control 
temporal affairs. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 99 

Formosus I, 891: During his five-year reign as pope, used 
his guards to kill out half of the people of Rome. 

Stephen VII, 897: Abrogated the decrees of Formosus I; had 
his body exhumed and ordered two fingers cut from his right 
hand; buried him as a layman. Stephen is said to have been 
strangled to death. 

Romanus, 898: Disavowed and abrogated all acts and decrees 
of Stephen. 

Theodorus II, 898: Rescinded and abrogated acts and decrees 
of his predecessors. 

John IX, 898: He "damns all Stephen did, and restored de- 
crees of Formosus," causing riots; had to flee the city. Between 
896 and 898 there were no less than five different popes — Peter's 
chair was not very healthy! 

Leo V, 903: Was cast in prison by Christophorus, his rival, 
where he died. 

At this period, history says: "We see in Rome nothing but 
debauchery, dissolution, drunkenness, and impurity; the houses 
of the priests have become the shameful retreats of prostitutes, 
jugglers and sodomites; they gamble by night and day in the 
residence of the pope." 

Christophorus, 903: Was himself deposed and shut up in a 
monastery. 

Sergius III, 904: Had Christophorus removed from monastery 
and put in prison; rescinded all the decrees of Formosus; died 
from excessive licentiousness. 

All historians say that this pope had children by his con- 
cubine, Marozia, who became popes; that they continued incest 
with her for three generations. 

John X, 914: The son of a nun and priest; Theodora, the 
mother of Marozia, one of the mistresses of Pope Sergius, became 
the mistress of Pope John X, who secured his "elevation" to 
Peter's "chair" through her influence; Marozia left her husband 
in favor of this pope; she became jealous of his intercourse with 
her mother and sister; had her husband force entrance into the 
Lateran palace, murder the pope's brother, put the pope in prison 
and strangled him to death between mattresses. (This pope "held 
the place of God (?) Almighty on earth" sixteen years.) 

John XI, 936: The infamous Marozia now ruled things, civil 
and ecclesiastical, in Rome; she caused her son, begotten by Pope 
Sergius, to be made Pope John XI; she poisoned her husband, 
Guy, ruler of Rome, and became the mistress of her own son, 
Pope John XI! She married Hugh, half brother of Guy, and 
made him governor of Rome; her illegitimate son, Alberec, 
wrested the city from his stepfather Hugh, became his own 
mother's paramour, imprisoned his pope brother, John XI, where 
he died. 

Forget not, dear reader, that all and singular decrees issued 
by these fellows are, and must ever be, obeyed by the "faithful," 
which bind them in conscience to the end of time; that he who 
exposes these things is a bigot, while those who refuse to submit 



100 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

to their teaching are heretics — and the church has the right to 
remove heretics from the earth by death ! 

Stephen IX, 939 : In a riot taking place shortly after his elec- 
tion, Stephen's face was so badly disfigured that he remained in 
seclusion. 

John XII, 956: This Vice-Gerent of Christ (?) was a son of 
Marozia, AND HIS OWN BROTHER, ALBEREC, WAS HIS 
FATHER! Marozia had him made pope while he was between 
12 and 18 years old. Under his reign, the Lateran palace became 
a brothel; he caused wives, widows and virgins to be carried off 
from the steps of the altar. (A Roman priest in Massachusetts, 
along in 1912, did this also, which case is on records of the court.) 

This pope reigned eight years as the supreme legislator, judge 
and executive for all the "faithful," and deposed. 

Leo VIII, 964: Because of the wrangle between Benedict V 
and Leo VIII, King Otho decided he would thereafter appoint 
the popes, deciding here in favor of Leo; this pope was im- 
prisoned, but released. 

Benedict VI, 972: Bad man; strangled by citizens. 

Boniface VII: A notorious character; seized the papal chair; 
was driven from Rome; stole the consecrated vessels. 

Benedict VII, 975: Gave an entertainment at the Vatican 
palace; had sixty of the invited guests lead out and pitilessly 
massacred by soldiers; said to have been assassinated. 

John XIV, 984: Was seized and put in prison by ex-Pope 
Boniface and starved to death. 

Boniface VII was the murderer of John; was driven from 
Rome; died in a debauch. 

John XV. 985: Son of a priest, Leo; hated by the people; 
driven from Rome; appealed to the king, people withdrew oppo- 
sition. 

Gregory V, 996 : Deposed by the civil power. 

John XVI, 996: The deposed pope, Gregory V, came into 
power, had John's eyes put out, his nose and ears cut off, from 
the effects of which he died. 

Sylvester II, 999 : Platina, a Catholic historian, says that this 
pope made a deliberate sale of himself to the devil, and had fre- 
quent conversations with him. 

Sergius IV, 1009: The son of a priest. 

Benedict VIII, 1012: Was unseated by one faction; rallied his 
forces and regained the chair ; accused Jews of being responsible 
for earthquake and had many of them put to death. 

John XIX, 1024 : Was hated by the people, who tried to assas- 
sinate him; was driven from Rome, taking refuge in Germany; 
reinstated by Emperor of Germany. 

Benedict IX, 1033: Made pope at age of 12 years; bad in 
every respect; deposed at age of 18; reinstated by Emperor 
Conrad; again deposed by the people at age of 23, because of 
gross immorality and cruelty. 

Sylvester III, 1044: Served forty-nine days and driven from 
city; Benedict returned, occupied the chair a short time, sold it 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 101 

to John for 15,000 pounds, duly "consecrating" him Christ's 
Vice-Gerent ! 

John XX, 1044: After spending the money received from the 
sale of the office to John, Benedict returned and took Peter's 
chair away from him. 

At this time there were three popes, each one claiming to be 
the "Infallible" head of the "only" true church established by 
Christ — one at St. Peter's, one at Lateran, and one at St. Major a, 
and — Rome was filled with adultery and murder ! 

Gregory VI, 1044: He purchased the throne from the three 
anti-popes, which gave this true church FOUR living heads; he 
had many wealthy citizens put to death and confiscated their 
property; was deposed by an army under Emperor Henry. 

Clement II, 1046: The Emperor called a church council to 
select a pope ; not a priest could be found fit to hold the chair, so 
he appointed Sudiger. Platina says he was subsequently poisoned 
by Benedict, who had been deposed three times. 

Damascus II, 1048: Following Clement, for the fourth time 
Benedict reseated himself in the papal chair, to be again driven 
out by the people, after which Damascus was made pope; Bene- 
dict poisoned Damascus and for the fifth time reigned as pope, 
to be again driven out by the people. 

Benedict X was declared illegally elected by Archdeacon Hilde- 
brand (later known as Gregory VII), and deposed. 

Alexander II, 1061: Made pope by Hildebrand; King Henry 
of Germany called a church council and made the Bishop of 
Parma pope; becoming frightened, Alexander fled from Rome. 

Gregory VII, 1073 : We are now to consider a man who is said 
by many to have been the greatest, and perhaps the most infa- 
mous, of all the popes — Hildebrand, as Gregory VII ; he declared 
that "marriage attaches the clergy to the State, and estranges 
them from the church" (i. e., from the pope) ; excommunicated 
King Henry of Germany; was charged with having poisoned seven 
popes, and attempted the lives of several temporal rulers ; in the 
Council of Worms he was declared to be "an apostate monk, who 
adulterates the Bible, suits the books of the fathers to the wants 
of his execrable ambition, pollutes justice by becoming at once 
accuser, witness and judge. . . . Endeavors to oblige kings and 
bishops to pay the papal court for their diadems and mitres." He 
was deposed by this council. (An infallible pope being deposed 
by an infallible council; the church of Rome teaches that the 
doctrine of infallibility applies to every pope and to every 
council ! ) 

Hildebrand cursed and excommunicated King Henry and ab- 
solved all his subjects from their allegiance to him; the bishops 
and intelligent element supported the king for a while, but even- 
tually went over to the pope. 

Henry's mother, Empress Agnes, his aunt, the Duchess Be- 
atrice, and counsin, Matilda, daughter of Beatrice, were at that 
time living at the palace with the pope. Beatrice owned large 
estates in Italy, while Matilda, as the wife of Godfrey the 



102 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Hunchback, was more powerful. These two women renounced 
Henry in favor of Hildebrand, Matilda being publicly recognized 
as the pope's mistress at this time; being a friend of the king, 
her husband was feared, and Matilda was instrumental in having 
him killed on the night of February 20, 1076. 

As a mark of gratitude rendered by Matilda, and not to be 
bothered by this woman's mother, he enticed Beatrice to spend 
the night with him, having her murdered in the morning. 
Matilda now established herself in the Lateran palace as the 
inseparable companion of Gregory, meeting in consultations with 
cardinals, and sharing the rooms of the pope. 

Being as cunning as satan, by threats and otherwise, Hilde- 
brand caused King Henry to be deserted by the nobility, ecclesias- 
tics and common people, which forced the king to yield to every 
demand of the pope, and go to Rome to see him. Taking alarm 
at the demeanor of Henry's friends, however, Hildebrand, accom- 
panied by Matilda, fled to Augsburg, and shut himself up in the 
Castle Canossa, which belonged to Matilda. When King Henry 
arrived at the pope's retreat, he had to divest himself of all 
ensigns of royalty and clothe himself in sackcloth as an acknowl- 
edgement of his unworthiness to reign, in order to gain an audi- 
ence ; in this predicament, scantily clad, he was exposed for three 
days and nights to the severe cold of a European winter. Having 
compassion on him, his cousin, Matilda, arranged an audience for 
him with "his holiness." 

At the Provincial Synod held in Lombardy, the bishops again 
excommunicated Hildebrand and, because of the debasing cow- 
ardice of Henry, selected Rudolph for king; Henry raised an 
army to fight Gregory, and was excommunicated; the pope also 
declared Rudolph king, the decree ending with these words: 
"We declare Rudolph lawful king of the Teutonic States, and We 
grant to all who shall betray Henry absolution from all their sins 
and the blessings of Christ in this world and the next." 

Defeating Rudolph, Henry was again proclaimed Emperor of 
Germany; he called a council at Brixen, had Hildebrand de- 
posed, and the Bishop of Ravenna made pope, known as Clement 
III. 

After three years' siege of Rome, Henry entered the city and 
seated Clement in Peter's "chair," who, in turn, crowned Henry 
"Emperor of the West." 

Learning that Henry performed his devotions at a certain 
church, Hildebrand won over the cardinal-priest in charge, who 
attempted to kill the king at the altar; the plans miscarried, 
however, and the priest was cut into pieces by Henry's guards, 
dragged through the streets and thrown into sewers. 

Henry had to return to Germany to defend his interests against 
Matilda; in the meantime, Guiscard captured Rome, restored 
Hildebrand, who again excommunicated Henry as well as Clem- 
ent III, after which he retired to a distant retreat and died from 
fever brought on by the victorious return of Henry— died curs- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 103 

ing his brother "divine right" ruler the king, and his brother- 
god, Clement III ! 

This so-called "Christ- veiled-in-the-flesh;" this "Vice-Gerent 
of Christ;" this holder of "the place of God Almighty" on earth, 
whose decree so binds priests in conscience that they believe 
it is better for them to go wrong with a hundred different 
women than to marry one, is now on the Roman Calendar as a 
"Saint" to be invoked by all the "faithful" for all time ! 

Victor III, 1086: Was chosen pope by the dying Hildebrand; 
he reigned a few months and — died ! 

Urban II, 1088: He succeeded Victor III, and pronounced 
anew Hildebrand's excommunication against King Henry. 

Matilda married Duke Guelph of Bavaria; with connivance of 
the pope, she was intriguing against Henry, who invaded her 
territory, enforced peace, went to Rome and unseated Urban and 
put Clement in as pope. Urban induced Henry's son, Conrad, to 
instigate a rebellion against his father, which was successful, 
and Urban was again placed in the papal chair. 

Paschal II, 1099: Successor to Urban; made war on King 
Henry; the anti-pope Clement was poisoned, while the others — 
Albert, Theodoric and Maguinuiph — were imprisoned or exiled. 
Paschal also excommunicated Henry. 

In memory of her paramour, Hildebrand, Matilda cut off all 
her natural relatives, and bequeathed her vast wealth to the 
papacy. 

Paschal and Matilda continued plotting against Henry, and 
caused his son Henry to take up arms against him ; the king was 
captured, imprisoned and cruelly treated; he escaped and fled to 
Belgium. Enraged at his escape, Paschal ordered the lords, 
princes and bishops of France, Germany, Bavaria, Suabia and 
Saxony and the clergy at Liege to "Pursue everywhere .... 
Henry . . . exterminate that infamous king! . . . We order you 
and your vassals to put him to death in the most cruel tortures, 
and if you faithfully execute Our will, We grant to you remis- 
sion of your sins, and an arrival after death at the heavenly 
Jerusalem." 

Some of the ecclesiastics were disgusted with this order to 
commit murder, even if it did come from the one who held "the 
place of God Almighty" on the earth. (They were safe, though, 
because they remained in the "true" fold!) 

King Henry was poisoned, dying in exile; his son carried out, 
as far as he could, the pope's infamous decree : cut the body into 
pieces and over his tomb inscribed: "Here Lies the Enemy of 
Rome," which remained five centuries a monument to the pope's 
honor ! 

Gelasius II, 1118: This pope was not without troubles; he 
was knocked down and trampled upon in the church where "con- 
secrated," dragged out by his hair; although rescued from his 
"children," he learned that Henry V of Germany was coming 
to dethrone him — he fled and refused to return. 

Honorius II, 1124: He was one of two contemporaneous 



104 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

popes; one faction elected Thebald, another Lambert; the first 
yielded in favor of the latter. Honorius kept up continual war- 
fare with Roger of Sicily. 

Innocent II, 1130: One faction selected Innocent, another an 
anti-pope, Anaclet, grandson of a converted Jew. Innocent went 
to war against Roger of Sicily, was defeated and imprisoned 
with three cardinals; after his release, returned to Rome, and 
was driven out of the country by the anti-pope. Thousands were 
killed in the two years' war between the two popes. Anaclet 
was poisoned in 1138. 

Lucius II, 1144: This pope is said to have personally partici- 
pated in war, was hit on the head with a rock and died instantly. 

Eugenius III, 1145: The first pope to experience real trouble 
arising from a Protestant Reformer: Arnold of Brescia attacked 
the terrible, gross immorality of the clergy; the people arose 
against their despoilers, which caused the pope to take refuge in 
France, where he remained four years. 

Adrian IV, 1154: This Vice-Gerent of Christ ordered Fred- 
erick I of Germany to surrender Arnold of Brescia; commanded 
him to be burnt, and his ashes thrown into the Tiber. 

The Emperor of Germany severed connection with the papacy. 

Adrian was the pope who sold Ireland to England, King Henry 
agreeing to pay the pope one penny a year for each household in 
Ireland. Henry was himself a rank Romanist. 

The so-called "Irish question" always has been, and will con- 
tinue to be, a papal question; all the suffering endured by those 
of the Emerald Isle was and is due to the papacy, yet Irish 
Catholics the world over will lick the hand that sold and betrayed 
them in the first place — they never resent that power which sold 
them, but never cease to berate the other, which bought them. 
Mark this: the pope will never permit the Irish question to be 
settled on any other basis than the one which will accord the 
Roman church all the rights that it enjoys in Austria and Spain; 
and that means literal extermination of the large number of 
Protestant Irish of Ulster. The first Protestant to die for heresy 
was under the reign of King Henry, directed by papal ecclesi- 
astics. 

If the pope of Rome cannot find better means, he will, through 
his priests, use the Irish question to bring on war between Eng- 
land and America; nothing since the Massacre of St. Bartholo- 
mew's Day would cause more rejoicing in the Vatican and papal 
circles than for the two great Protestant nations — England and 
America — to become involved in war. 

According to the prediction of Cardinal Newman, the pope ex- 
pected the Great War to restore the papacy's ancient power. The 
failure of the Central Powers did not stop the intrigue of the 
Roman church, and it will bring on wars between the great 
powers of the world until the pope again becomes supreme or his 
power in the earth completely destroyed. 

The "courtly intrigue" of Jesuitism can be relied upon to de- 
vise a plausible cause; and at present, the Irish question gives 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 105 

promise. While it should be a penitentiary offense for a so-called 
citizen of this country to do anything that would tend to disrupt 
the friendly relations of this government with another, the papal 
Irish are given the right, it seems, to perfect organizations 
throughout the land, ostensibly in the interest of Ireland; but as 
all such societies are directly under the auspices of ROMAN 
CATHOLICS, that would indicate it as being a CHURCH move- 
ment to try and create sentiment in favor of having our Govern- 
ment aid in securing "Irish Freedom," even to the extent of war. 
Much is said about "Irish Freedom" by loud-mouthed hyphenates, 
but not a word is uttered in behalf of the one-third Irish who 
prefer to remain under the laws of England; they fought for 
England and democracy in the Great War, while the Catholic 
Irsh were sworn to resist, the oath being administered by the 
bishops, therefore, it would appear from these circumstances that 
the minority of Protestant Irish should have the protection they 
demand, and not be forced to submit to papal rule under "Home 
Rule" or "Irish Freedom." 

Suppose the United States and other nations should persuade 
England to declare Ireland a free republic? It would be an insult 
for any nation to assume this attitude, while on the other hand, 
"Irish Freedom" would mean civil war between the Catholic and 
Protestant Irish — a religious war that could easily involve the 
whole world in a war that would far surpass that which has just 
devastated the nations, for it would array Catholic and Protest- 
ant against each other within their own borders, and the world 
would be wrecked indeed. This is a suggestion only; that it can 
materialize, the existence of Jesuitism and the World War prove. 

Americans must frown down any effort seeking to interfere 
with the internal affairs of another nation; those who cannot 
abide by this principle should be deported; they are unworthy 
citizens of a free nation. 

All officers of the local Sinn Fein association are Roman 
Catholics. 

Alexander III, 1159: 

Victor IV, 1159: Two factions in the church chose each a 
pope — Octavian and Roland ; in a fight, Octavian drew blood from 
Roland by striking him on the nose; the dispute was settled by 
referring the matter to Frederick I; he selected Octavian, who 
was subjected to the "pierced chair" test, to safeguard against 
another popess. 

A war ensued between the pope and Barbarossa, Emperor of 
Germany; the Kings of England and France recognized Alexan- 
der ; Germany, Victor. Upon the death of Victor, Alexander be- 
came pope; under him began the bloody persecutions of the non- 
Catholics known as Waldenses. A cardinal lead the troops 
against these Protestants; thousands of old men, women and 
children were hung, drawn and quartered, broken on the wheel, 
or burnt alive, their property being confiscated for the benefit of 
the pope. 

Lucius III, 1181: This pope was driven from Rome by the 



106 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

people because of his avarice; he issued a bull against heretics, 
declaring: "Any cleric favoring heretics, to be deprived of his 
office and pay, and be turned over to secular justice. If laymen, 
We order that they suffer the most horrid tortures, be proved by 
fire and sword, torn by stripes and burnt alive." Those who 
hesitate to inform on another "shall be immediately put to tor- 
ture." Under the direction of bishops all "counts, barons, rectors 
and consuls of cities and other places" were to "engage by oath 
to persecute heretics ... to excite with all their power" all that 
the pope commands "in regard to the crimes of heresy" under 
pain of being deprived of all rights as citizens, and excommuni- 
cated. "The cities which shall neglect to pursue heretics shall 
be excluded from commerce — (the boycott is of papal origin) — 
with other cities . . . and citizens shall be excommunicated, and 
. . . declared unfit to fill any public or ecclesiastical function. 
All the faithful shall have the right to kill them, seize their goods 
and reduce them to slavery." Note the perfect accord of the 
bishop's oath to-day with that decree! 

Italian popery boasts that it never changes; its spirit is always 
the same, biding its time, and no one but fool non-Catholics say 
otherwise. 

Urban III, 1185: Quarreled with Barbarossa; fearing the em- 
peror, fled to Venice. 

Clement III, 1187: He was consecrated pope at Pisa; the peo- 
ple of Rome did not want the seat of the papal government there 
again, but a subsequent treaty finally admitted its return. 

Celestine III, 1190: Henry of Germany was crowned by this 
pope; while in a kneeling posture, the crown was placed on his 
head and kicked off by the pope, signifying that he had the right 
to make and unmake rulers. 

Innocent III, 1198: Matthews Paris, a monk, has the follow- 
ing to say relative to conditions at this time under popery : "The 
little faith . . . under the last popes . . . was extinguished; . . 
religion is dead . . . the holy city has become an infamous pros- 
titute" while the people were despoiled by the monks brandishing 
papal bulls. Under the reign of Innocent III popery produced 
one of the most blood-thirsty "saints" to be found on the Roman 
Calendar, St. Dominic ; he, with Count de Montf ort, lead an army 
against the City of Beziers (France) where thousands of non- 
Catholics (the Albigenses) were assembled; the city was be- 
seiged; Count de Beziers pleaded with Dominic to spare, at least, 
the Romanists who were in the majority in the city; Dominic 
replied that he had orders from the pope to destroy the city and 
put all the people to the sword — that after the butchery God 
would know His friends, and sixty thousand men, women and 
children perished by will of the pope of Rome. 

Honorius III, 1216: The persecution of "heretics" was con- 
tinued under this "Vice-Gerent" (?) of Christ. 

King Louis VIII, under orders from the pope, took up where 
"Saint" Dominic left off; the Albigenses left France, going to 
Lombardy — that is, those who could escape the death-embrace 
of the minions of the only "true" religion ! 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 107 

Gregory IX, 1227: The quarrel between the papacy and Em- 
peror Frederick of Germany continued; upon being excommuni- 
cated by the pope, Frederick wrote him : ". . . the Roman church 
not only swallows up, in its orgies, the wealth which it snatches 
from the . . . faithful, but even despoils sovereigns . . . every 
one knows the popes are insatiate blood-suckers. . . . The priests 
affirm that the church is our mother, our nurse; it is ... an 
infamous step-mother, which devours those whom its hypocritical 
voice calls children. ... In its hands the morality of Christ has 
become a terrible arm, which permits it to murder men in order 
to ravish them of their treasures." 

Celestine IV, 1241 : Reigned eighteen days — died from poison. 

Innocent IV, 1243: Learning that Emperor Frederick was 
marching toward Rome, fled to Genoa ; from there he sent letters 
to France, England and Spain, asking permission to set up papal 
thrones; each country absolutely refused permission; he then 
took up his residence in Lyons. Innocent attempted to poison 
Frederick, employing the king's physician, counselor and confi- 
dant. 

Alexander IV, 1254: Succeeded Innocent IV; lived in Rome a 
short while — the people ran him out. At this time appeared the 
fanatical Romanists known as "Flagellantes" — men, women and 
children who marched through the streets entirely naked, beating 
themselves as they marched. 

Urban IV, 1261: Spent three years quarreling with secular 
rulers. 

Gregory X, 1271: Compelled to live away from Rome, resid- 
ing at Orvietto, Florence and Piacenza, respectively; was driven 
out of Florence — in leaving he pronounced a curse against the 
people: "I devote thee to eternal damnation." 

Innocent V, 1276 : He served six months only. It would seem 
that the saying, "The good die young," must have originated with 
the way the popes held Peter's chair; those who appear to have 
been good men did not live long after "consecration." Innocent 
was poisoned. 

Adrian V, 1276 : Said to have been poisoned. 

John XXI, 1276: At the council called to convene at Viterba 
to elect a pope, the College of Cardinals could not come to an 
agreement as to who should hold the place of God on earth; the 
citizenry captured the "sacred college" and put the cardinals in 
prison; after the threat to murder the whole lot unless they 
selected a pope, they elected John XXI. 

Nicholas III, 1277: He originated the fiendish massacre 
known as "The Sicilian Vespers;" the scheme was to put the 
whole of Italy under papal domination by murdering the French 
in Sicily; this pope died, but his plot survived. 

Martin IV, 1281 : Carried out the plot of Nicholas III : "On 
Easter Day, March 20, 1282, at the hour of Vespers, the Sicilians 
fell upon the French, killing them on the streets, in their homes, 
and even at the foot of the altars." Eight thousand were mur- 
dered by DIRECTION of this "Christ-veiled-in-the-flesh" in less 
than two hours ! 



108 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Honorius IV, 1285: Pope Martin had excommunicated the 
Spanish King, Peter of Aragon; Honorius induced France to 
invade Spain and punish Peter; in this crusade, the soldiers com- 
mitted every crime known to depraved soldiery against unpre- 
pared, helpless victims — the pope sending one family of the 
"faithful" to destroy his "children" elsewhere! 

Nicholas IV, 1288: Instituted the first Tribunals of the "Holy" 
Inquisition in Venice and Avignon — that terrible machinery for 
the extermination of heretics, which was placed in charge of his 
Dominican priests; he authorized them to pursue heretics with 
fire and sword, confiscate their roperty and destroy all the houses 
used by them. By a bull, Nicholas ordered the civil rulers and 
authorities to aid his murderous crew with force. 

Celestine V, 1294 : Seems to have been an honest-minded man ; 
he said: "I believe it impossible to shun eternal damnation if I 
remain pope, so I resign." 

Boniface VIII, 1294: Threatened all the kings of Europe — 
caused ruptures among them, inciting to wars; to replenish his 
coffers, instituted "Jubilees," now called "Pilgrimages to Rome" 
— where the simple-minded went for the purpose of buying indi- 
gencies and — empty their purses. This pope issued a bull, de- 
claring himself absolute sovereign of France, whereupon King 
Philip called a Council to depose him; among other things 
charged against him at this Council was that he preached being 
infallible, he could commit incest, robbery and murder without 
being criminal — that it would be heresy to say the pope sinned; 
that the sums of money which the fables of Christ produced to 
the priests was incalculable; that it was no greater sin to aban- 
don one's self to pleasure with a young girl than to rub one's 
hands together. 

Benedict II, 1303 : Poisoned by a priest. 

Clement V, 1305: In a fight with his cardinals at a banquet 
given by him, his brother was killed; he and King Philip of 
France began a war of extermination against heretics and 
Knights Templars; by trickery he induced DeMolay, Grand Mas- 
ter of the Knights Templars, to leave Palestine and bring all the 
treasures of the order with him; unsuspectingly, DeMolay and 
many other members of the order obeyed the request — they were 
murdered and the loot divided between pope and king. He ranks 
as one among many bad popes. 

John XXII, 1316: As a consequence of a faction existing 
between the cardinals, God had no substitute on earth for two 
years. Peter's chair was vacant; not being able to agree on a 
supreme ruler of the universe, they asked Cardinal d'Ossa to 
choose the worthiest among them — he immediately placed the 
tiara upon his own head. In this manner the papal church 
secured a Vice-Gerent of Christ, known as John XXII! This 
pope was not satisfied with the great stream of wealth flowing in 
through the channels of the. "Holy Inquisition," so the monster 
prepared a "fee-list," selling absolution for the crimes of parri- 
cide, murder, robbery, incest, sodomy, beastiality; it included 
every crime a depraved mind could crave, and the "tax" was 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 109 

small: the heaviest penalty being for striking a priest. He added 
the third crown ("third story") to the papal tiara, which it is 
said signified that he was ruler over heaven, earth and hell. All 
classes had to pay tribute to him in some manner — kings, priests, 
and really poor monks; he had many of the "faithful" of his 
own fold murdered when they refused to pay tribute, making use 
of the "Holy Inquisition" for that purpose. 

The following is one item on the fee-list: "Priests who shall 
wish to obtain authority to live in concubinage with their rela- 
tives shall pay sixteen francs, one sou." 

Two Franciscan monks appealed to King Louis of Bavaria 
against the pope alleging that "The throne of the church has 
been occupied by wretches who arrogate to themselves the name 
of Christ, the right to commit every crime with impunity, of 
despoiling kings and peoples of their wealth, and of putting to 
death . . . men who reject their audacious pretensions to IN- 
FALLIBILITY. We entreat you ... to overthrow from the 
Pontifical chair this disgrace to humanity. ... No longer suffer 
these thieves, sodomites, assassins to enchain the nation." 

King Louis called a great Council in Rome and had Pope John 
XXII deposed because of his crimes ; as the pope was residing in 
France, the death penalty could not be inflicted; a monk, Peter 
Rainillucci, was made pope — Nicholas V; now God has TWO 
substitutes in the world — both equally infallible — one in France, 
the other in Italy. At his death, John was in possession of 
18,000,000 florins and jewelry valued at 7,000,000. 

Nicholas V, 1328 : An anti-pope — that is, one of two or more 
men who were duly elected and consecrated to sit in Peter's 
chair; was dethroned by John XXII, imprisoned three years and 
strangled; said to have been a good man. 

Benedict XII, 1333: Quarreled continuously with kings and 
princes; a corrupt man. 

Clement VI, 1342 : Gloried in his shameful conduct as a car- 
dinal — as pope, no better. At this time the people of Rome were 
sorely oppressed by the nobility; Rienzi declared Rome a re- 
public, but papal gold and intrigue forced him to flee for his life. 

The day before the death of Clement, he is said to have re- 
ceived the following letter from the Bishop of Milan: "Beelze- 
bub, Prince of Darkness, to Pope Clement, his vicar: Your 
mother, Pride, salutes you; your sisters, Knavery, Avarice and 
Shamelessness; and your brothers, Incest, Robbery and Murder, 
thank you for having caused them to prosper. Given from the 
center of hell, amid acclamations of a troupe of demons; and in 
the presence of two hundred damned popes, who wait your pres- 
ence with impatience." 

Innocent VI, 1352: Endeavored to co-operate with Rienzi, who 
had returned to Rome; Innocent assassinated by a monk. 

Charles IV of Germany desired to be crowned by the pope; 
journeyed to Rome as a barefooted pilgrim, debasing himself 
before the pope. Petrarch, a poet of Italy, to indicate to Charles 
what kind of creature he had submitted to, addressed him : "... 



110 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

in a word, the salvation of the human family lies in gold; it is 
gold alone that can appease the monster, chain him, make him 
smile; with gold you may deflower your sister, murder your 
father; with gold you can open heaven, buy the saints, the 
angels, the virgins, the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and the Eternal 
Father Himself — the pope will sell you everything for gold 
except his tiara." Rather scathing indictment of the supreme 
ruler of the universe. Innocent VI, however, appears to have 
been a better man than many of the popes. 

Gregory XI, 1370: The papal treasury was about exhausted; 
in order to replenish it, Gregory ordered Charles V to extirpate 
the heretics in his realm, to excite the courage of the Inquisitors. 
The papal court was at Avignon, where it was established twenty 
years previously; a delegation was sent from Rome to the pope, 
informing him that, as he claimed dominion over the city, he 
would either have to surrender title, or remove the court to 
Rome — so he established himself in Rome. 

The British Isles were Catholic, but opposition to papal domi- 
nation was becoming pronounced; Wycliffe sought to free the 
country of papal power; Gregory ordered the Bishop of London 
to arrest Wycliffe, put him to the torture, and forward to him 
any confession the victim may make. 

Urban VI, 1378, at Rome; 

Clement VII, 1378, at Avignon: Again the papal church is a 
two-headed institution, which split Europe into factions, each 
claiming its man to be God's superintendent of this mundane 
sphere. As each and every pope was "infallible," the fact of two 
popes existing at the same time was a problem for that church, 
concerning which, the Jesuit historian, Maimburg, declared: 
"An universal Council, which had the infallible assistance of the 
Holy Spirit, could not decide this grave question." This divided 
Europe into two hostile camps: Germany, England, Hungary, 
Poland, Bohemia, Denmark, Sweden, Prussia, Norway, Holland, 
Tuscany, Lombardy and Milan favored Urban; Charles of 
France, Savoy, Lorraine, Navarre, Scotland, Aragon and Cas- 
tile were for Clement. Anathemas, interdicts, depositions and 
maledictions were hurled from one pope to the other, culminat- 
ing in a bloody war among the nations: "Everywhere hamlets 
and villages exhibited only ruins; dead bodies of thousands of 
men and women lay unburied on the fields ; flocks wandered with- 
out resting places." 

No pen can describe the horrors of those times — nor any war 
brought on by the "divine right" parasites of Europe — when 
every means of torture and slow death were employed. 

Urban died in 1389; Clement, 1398. 

Boniface IX, at Rome: 

Benedict XIII, at Avignon: Boniface succeeded Urban, while 
Clement was still living at Avignon : two more popes at one time. 
England separated herself from the papacy; France, being tired 
of "two popes to fatten," endeavored to end the schism. Bene- 
dict died. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 111 

Innocent VII, 1404: At Rome; spent the greater part of his 
four years trying to overcome the plots of his brother man-god, 
Boniface, at Avignon. 

Gregory XII, 1406: At Rome; succeeded Innocent VII; he 
continues at Avignon. Theodoric of Neim describes the times, 
saying that "the Christian world is abandoned to frightful 
calamities; ... all the virtues have been banished among men, 
great and small, from king to serf. . . . There is nothing sound 
or whole in the universal church; all its body is cursed with 
impure leprosy, from the sole of the feet to the crown of the 
head." 

Gregory was making preparations to torture his "sacred col- 
lege" of cardinals; becoming frightened, they fled — and now we 
have the spectacle of a pope and a college of cardinals anathe- 
matizing each other; and both are "infallible!" Benedict was 
driven from France; a joint college of cardinals was called, 
which ordered both popes to appear before that tribunal; they 
ignored the summons, whereupon the Patriarch of Alexander 
proceeded to pronounce sentence upon those "two infamous men" 
from the pulpit. This council deposed both popes, and selected 
Alexander V. 

Alexander V, 1409: At Rome; the only "true" church is still 
triple-headed. Alexander died very suddenly. 

John XXIII, 1410: At Rome; still tri-headed. As a bishop, 
John was bad enough; worse as pope. He licensed wickedness, 
and executed all who opposed him ; eventually driven from Rome ; 
was deposed by the Council of Constance and imprisoned; he 
signed his own resignation. At this Council was declared the 
truth-destroying decree, "Keep no faith with heretics." The first 
victim to be condemned under this legislation was John Huss, 
who was cited to appear before that council to be tried for heresy 
(was a heretic for disagreeing with what the popes decreed), 
although the Emperor, Sigsmund, had granted him safe-conduct; 
Huss was found guilty of heresy and burnt at the stake; Jerome 
of Prague, his disciple, suffered the same fate. 

Martin V, 1417: Martin was chosen, although Benedict 
claimed title — his career was soon ended by a monk administer- 
ing a dose of poison, for which he was hanged and cut into 
pieces. The King of Aragon convened a council of the church 
and elected another pope, Clement VIII, which left that institu- 
tion with only two heads. Pope Martin sent an army against 
the Bohemians — Huss followers — which received a whipping. He 
persuaded Clement to resign, leaving him sole head of the church 
and occupant of the chair of "Peter." For a period of approxi- 
mately FIFTY YEARS this "only" true church of Christ (?) 
had two or more heads, each one being duly "consecrated!" 

Eugenius IV, 1431 : He is said to have been the son of Gregory 
XII and a nun — a result of Hildebrand's legislation. Quarreled 
with everybody; deposed at council of Basil. 

Felix V, 1439: Successor of Eugenius; although claiming to 
be God's substitute, he abdicated. 



112 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Nicholas V, 1471: Is alleged to have been one of the "best 
bad popes." 

Paul II, 1464 : A cruel man. 

Sixtus IV, 1471 : Cormenin, the historian, styles him "the vilest 
of men;" the father of several illegitimate children; decreed that 
nephews and children of popes should be Roman princes; was 
party to the plot to murder Julius and Lawrence Medici, arranging 
for assassinations to take place at a signal, which was to be the 
elevation of the Mass. Julius was killed; Lawrence, though 
wounded, called for help; for this, two priests and two deacons 
were hanged. The bishop saved his life by turning State's witness 
against the pope, whose order he was attempting to obey. Rod- 
erick Borgia was, at this time, legate from the papal court to 
Spain, where he was displaying great power; attempted to de- 
throne King Henry and put Isabella, the king's sister, on the 
throne with her husband Ferdinand; was successful after death 
of Henry. 

We now consider a character that will never be forgotten as 
long as history is truthfully written — Thomas of Torquemada, 
head of the Dominican priesthood. To him, Christ's (?) Vice- 
Gerent committed the work of exterminating all heretics and 
Jews of Spain; he succeeded in filling the prisons of the "holy" 
office of the Inquisition eleven times in nine months; the sight 
of wasting bodies, emaciated cheeks, quivering limbs torn from 
living trunks, broken bones, and the writhing of victims under- 
going every torture that the brains of man, assisted by the 
devil, could devise only served to render those human tigers more 
ferocious. A decree was issued by the Roman Catholic king, 
pledging safety to such heretics as would voluntarily return as 
prisoners to the "holy" Inquisition, promising not only freedom, 
but also the restoration of confiscated property; large numbers 
put their "trust" in the word of a Catholic king, and — they were 
burnt alive ! Was the decree of the Council of Constance, "Keep 
no faith with heretics," valid? So reads the record. 

Having exhausted the visible supply of heretics, the Catholic 
Inquisition resorted to what was known as "Informers." Be it 
observed, that in countries predominantly non-Catholic, the canon 
law of the pope's church says this law need not be enforced! 
Like all other laws of that institution, it is to be enforced only as 
the pope may deem it safe to try it — and he will try it then, even 
though it should depopulate the earth of all those "Baptized" but 
not acknowledging the pope as THEIR BISHOP. An "informer" 
had to report the name of every person suspected of heresy, or 
favoring heretics. This netted the "holy" fathers nineteen thou- 
sand additional victims in less than six months ! It was the duty 
of a Roman Catholic to "inform" on his own father, mother, 
sister, brother, friend — Pope Leo XIII wrote Cardinal Gibbons 
not to "neglect what antiquity," and the "Apostolic" teaching 
required in "reclaiming" heretics ! Those horrors staged against 
man by Italian popery chill the blood — those death-requiring de- 
crees of that institution are as much a part of the laws of that 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 113 

institution to-day as they were then ; nevertheless, Farrell speaks 
of "suspicion" and "trust!" 

Sixtus IV granted bulls establishing the Inquisition by Torque- 
mada; Ferinand was a tool of Borgia's, Borgia being a tool of 
Sixtus, and he a tool of hell. Roderick Borgia was only qualify- 
ing to later become "Christ-vailed-in-the-flesh" under the name 
of Alexander VI. 

Innocent VIII, 1484: Another bloody-handed monster claim- 
ing to be the Vice-Gerent of Christ; he sent Archdeacon Albert 
into France to exterminate the Vaudois — French Proestants — 
who secured permission from the Catholic French king to carry 
out the will of the pope. Proceeding with a band of fierce papal 
soldiers, to execute the command of the pope, they found that the 
poor people had fled with their children to the mountains; 
when discovered hiding in a cave, the soldiers closed the entrance 
with wood and straw and applied the torch ; where tinder was not 
available for the purpose, caves were sealed up with stones. Upon 
re-opening some of those hiding places, more than eight hundred 
young children were found dead either in the arms of their 
mothers or in cradles. The greater number, who did not fall into 
the clutches of "holy mother church," committed suicide rather 
than be at the mercy of those whose "main pre-occupation" was 
serving the "interests" of "Catholicism" as required and de- 
fined by the "Holy Father, His Holiness," Pope Innocent VIII. 
Of six thousand Vaudois, about six hundred only escaped that 
"loving" embrace of "holy mother church." 

Alexander VI, 1491 : This is Roderick Borgia, formerly legate 
of Sixtus IV to Spain. 

An interesting era of the world's history now begins; a year 
after Alexander's election, America was discovered; the Protes- 
tant Reformation began to rift the dark cloud of papalism that 
had enveloped the civilized nations like smoke from the infernal 
regions. 

As a cardinal in Spain, Alexander lived with a Spanish woman 
— another result of Hildebrand's legislation — and became the 
father of five children, including Caesar and Lucretia, characters 
not unknown to historians. 

The city of Rome was now at the zenith of papal glory — a 
seething cauldron, as it were, of crime; assassins ruled; fifty 
thousand prostitutes walked her streets! 

Portugal and Spain were discovering new worlds — and quar- 
reling over ownership. Being chosen abitrator, the pope drew a 
line from pole to pole, through the Azores, giving all west of that, 
including America, to Spain, all east to Portugal. 

Alexander was so bad that the emperor of Germany, kings of 
England, France, Castile and Portugal demanded his reform, 
under pain of being deposed. This Vice-Gerent came to his end 
by drinking a cup he had prepared for one of his cardinals — by 
mistake, of course! 

Savonarola, the monk, was, by order of Alexander, burnt at the 
stake, on May 23, 1489, for delivering sermons in which he in- 
dicted the corrupt papal court. 



114 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Pius III, 1503: Said to have been a good man; served only 
twenty-six days — poisoned. 

Julius II, 1503: Known as the "Warrior Pope." His entire 
pontificate was spent in making war in every direction. 

Leo X, 1513: This pope sent Dominican monks throughout 
Europe, peddling indulgencies — indulgencies for remission of 
temporal punishment for breaking any of the Ten Command- 
ments of God; the infamous Tetzel was on this mission in Ger- 
many, which aroused the monk, Martin Luther, to action, from 
which sprang the great Protestant Reformation — and the Church 
of Rome was forced also to call a great council and attempt to 
reform itself; Spain was subjugating the New World with fire 
and sword, while the people of some of the Latin countries, tried 
beyond endurance, were putting Catholic priests to death. 

Martin Luther: A MAN! It took little less than a GOD to 
STAND ALONE and defy papalism: if one will observe the 
cowardly, spineless excuses for men in many so-called Protestant 
pulpits and elsewhere, who will not mention the word "Catholic" 
except in a cringing, apologetic manner, they will understand 
what sort of man Luther was. Rome is just as active to-day 
against peoples and governments and the principles of the Refor- 
mation as in Luther's day, but she is attempting to accomplish 
her objective now mostly through political intrigue and channels 
of education; she adopts means "to suit places and times" — 
expediency. 

Clement VII, 1523: The British Empire, under the reign of 
King Henry VIII, severed all connection with the papal court. 

Paul III, 1534: The Spanish Ambassador to Rome, himself a 
Roman Catholic, says this of Paul: "He was shod backwards, so 
that one might imagine he was going on, while he was turning 
back." Paul's efforts to crush the Reformation were futile; issued 
a bull against Henry VIII of England, declaring all his subjects 
absolved from their allegiance, proclaiming the throne forfeited 
in favor of the first enemy to occupy it, prohibited other nations 
having intercourse with England; pronounced all Henry's chil- 
dren bastards, permitting the "faithful" of the church to fall 
upon him and his. 

Calvin, Servetus and Melanchthon now appear upon the scene; 
they differed somewhat in their tenets, but were all agreed con- 
cerning papalism, attacking it as a corrupt institution. 

At this age was formed that notorious order known as the 
"Society of Jesus" — Jesuits, by Ignatius Loyola, a broken-down 
Spanish soldier, who was made a "saint." 

Julius III, 1549 : He was as vile and degenerate as was the city 
over which he ruled; made a cardinal of a 16-year-old boy, who 
was a keeper of monkeys. Queen Mary being on the throne, the 
Jesuits were admitted again in England, while Protestants were 
being persecuted. Protestantism made the religion of State in 
Germany. 

Marcellus II, 1555 : Highly esteemed — died within twenty-one 
days. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 115 

Paul IV, 1555 : To enrich his relatives, had the Caraff a family 
killed and property confiscated. Spain the only nation murdering 
non-Catholics. 

Pius V, 1556 : Endeavored to destroy Queen Elizabeth of Eng- 
land; issued a bull against her, declaring her to be a heretic and 
favorer of heretics, depriving her of her "pretended title" of 
queen, absolving all subjects from their allegiance to her, demand- 
ing that they refuse to obey her commands or laws. 

Before being elected to "hold upon this earth the place of God 
Almighty," Pius V was an Inquisitor; as pope, he used those 
instruments for human torture he had become so familiar with: 
it is charged a young woman was accused of being a follower of 
Calvin ; although she gave birth to a child on the day of her arrest, 
the pope had her tortured on the rack, with fire and pincers, and 
water pumped down her throat — she died ; the charge was after- 
ward proved untrue. Ordered King Philip of Spain to invade the 
Netherlands and "make these wretches swim in a sea of blood; 
fire and sword must transform these plains and cities into 
deserts." Tens of thousands of Hollanders were massacred by 
Spanish soldiers. 

Pius V was perfecting a plot to exterminate all the Protestants 
of Europe when he died; was one of the most blood-thirsty mon- 
sters on record. 

Gregory XIII, 1572: Under the reign of this pope, and with 
his sanction, Catherine de Medici and her son, Charles IX of 
France, staged the most cruel and colossal crime and betrayal of 
"trust" that stains the pages of profane history. The French 
Protestant Huguenots were lulled into a false sense of security 
by the Siren song of "peace"; with honeyed words and petty 
favors the Catholic king and his mother tricked the Huguenots 
into going to Paris unarmed, to celebrate a "Peace Pact" in the 
form of a marriage. Catharine proposed that Queen Jane of 
Navarre — Protestant — marry her son Prince Henry to Margaret 
of Valois — Catholic — daughter of Catherine, sister of Charles IX. 
Having laid down "suspicion" with their arms, the Protestants 
flocked into Paris, and, when the signal was given, on St. Bar- 
tholomew's Day, at 1 o'clock, thirty thousand men, women, chil- 
dren and babies were murdered on that and the following day, 
while seventy to ninety thousand were slain, it is said, within 
three months in other parts of the country. This was part of the 
scheme of Pius V. 

To perpetuate the memory of this ferocious butchery, Pope 
Gregory XIII ordered medals struck depicting the event, and had 
artists paint the bloody scenes in the Vatican halls. 

Sixtus V, 1585: Appointed a commission to investigate nun- 
neries of Europe; Aldebranden reported: "Without exception, 
houses of prostitution." He appointed another commission to 
revise the Bible, declaring that the edition then in use contained 
five thousand errors, he himself making many changes in the 
original text ; his edition was, at a later date, suppressed — known 
as the "Sistine." While pretending to be the friend of Elizabeth, 



116 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

was secretly intriguing with the Spanish king for her assassina- 
tion, the purpose being to enthrone Bloody Mary, Queen of Scots. 
He used the Jesuits where he could, but was their enemy; they are 
said to have poisoned him August 27, 1590. 

Urban VII: Evidently a good man, as he lived twelve days 
after "elevation" to Peter's chair ! 

Gregory XIV, 1590: Reigned one year. 

Innocent IX: Served eleven months; Cormenin says that 
Sixtus V, Urban VII, Gregory XIV, and Innocent IX were 
poisoned by the Jesuits. 

Clement VIII, 1592: Tried to dethrone Henry of Navarre; 
Jesuits endeavored to kill Henry; on evidence the order was ex- 
pelled from France. Clement also, it is allged, was poisoned by 
Jesuits. 

Leo XI, 1605 : Lived only twenty-six days thereafter ! 

Paul V, 1605: The plot to blow up the English Parliament, 
known as the "Guy Fawkes" or "Gunpowder Plot," was hatched 
under the reign of this pope; thirty barrels of gunpowder were 
used for the purpose; was foiled by discovery; this occasioned 
King James I to require all his subjects to swear allegiance to 
him as supreme in the realm against any foreign pope or poten- 
tate. 

Gregory XV, 1621: Bitter persecutions of Protestants indulged 
in; the Jesuits overrun the Americas, China, Japan and India. 

Urban VIII, 1623: Horrible wars going on; the pope playing 
both ends against the middle ; Galileo, the astronomer, persecuted 
for teaching that the earth revolved while the sun remained 
stationary — declared false and heretical by the papal church. 
(Centuries after the world had accepted the teaching of Galileo, 
the Roman church did so ! ) 

Innocent X, 1644: A shameless debauch. Thirty Years' War 
at an end and Protestantism firmly established in Europe. 

Clement XI, 1700: To destroy Protestantism and prevent en- 
lightenment of the "faithful," Clement issued his famous (?) bull, 
"Unigenitus," condemning for all time reading of the Bible by 
laymen. (A special permit must be secured, especially in Cath- 
olic countries, to read the Bible to-day. Why should they read it? 
Does not the pope interpret it for them?) 

Clement XII, 1730: The most brilliant intellects of France 
were fulminating against popes and priests. A powerful secret 
influence was militating against the pope in France and, as Clem- 
ent could not discover who his enemies were, hurled anathema 
against the Freemasons, forbidding any person, under pain of 
death, joining the order. This attack offered a suggestion to other 
nations — a great light shone in papal darkness — lodges sprang 
up all over Europe. Clement canonized the bloody Vincent de 
Paul, who had rendered signal service to the church in helping to 
kill those who would not bend the knee and will to the Papal Tiger 
—many churches and papal societies are named in honor of this 
"saint" to-day! The Italians say this pope was really elected 
through the instrumentality of bedbugs: when Benedict XIII 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 117 

went to purgatory, the cardinals prepared, as usual, to elect his 
successor; many aspirants caused delay; suddenly the cells where 
the cardinals were became infested with millions of bedbugs, and 
they hastened to choose a "Vice-Gerent" of Christ! 

Benedict XIV, 1740: He was an enigma — forbade the Jesuits 
to continue practice of conforming to religious laws and customs 
of heathen lands. 

Because of fraudulent business transactions, the constitution 
of the Jesuits was unearthed before the Catholic Parliament of 
France, in what is known as the Lavalette Case; the dangerous 
doctrines of the order as there revealed caused it to be expelled 
from France — doctrines reversing the natural code as to simony, 
blasphemy, magic, withcraft, astrology, irreligion, idoltary, im- 
purity, false witness, adultery, incest, sodomy, robbery, suicide, 
murder, parricide, regicide, etc. At this time they were expelled 
from Catholic Spain, having already been expelled from Catholic 
Portugal and Pagan China. 

The pope, in attempting to protect the Jesuits, aroused the 
enmity of all Catholic countries; expediency caused him to turn 
against them; prepared a bull to suppress the order; poisoned 
before it was published. 

Clement XIV, 1769 : Is said to have been the best pope for a 
thousand years; ordered suppression of the Jesuit order — and 
was poisoned; as he signed the decree of abolishment, he stated: 
"I am signing my death-warrant." 

Pius VI, 1774 : Has a record of twenty-five years of crime and 
wickedness. Napoleon appears upon the scene; ordered the man- 
god in Peter's chair to "retract, disavow and annul all decrees, 
bulls, sentences, censures, edicts, mandamuses, and generally all 
writings emanating from the papal court since commencement of 
the Revolution; that he should abolish the Inquisition in all 
Roman Catholic countries, and suppress the barbarous practice of 
castration on children (boys) destined to chant in churches." Pius 
died in a French prison. 

Pius VII, 1779: Many clashes between the pope and Napoleon; 
Pius re-established Jesuit order, which added great impetus to 
papalism throughout Europe. 

Leo XII, 1823: Issued decree against Bible societies, saying 
that they were "In opposition to the celebrated decree of the 
Council of Trent, which prohibits the Scriptures from being made 
common, it (the Bible society) publishes translations of them in 
all the languages of the world." 

Gregory XVI, 1831: Issued a bull condemning free conscience, 
free press, free opinion; he also issued a bull against the New 
York Bible Society. 

Pius IX, 1846 : This pope added the dogmas of the Immaculate 
Conception and Papal Infallibility to the creed — questions which 
had been raised and denied many, many years. Historians say 
that at the time the decree of the first dogma was proclaimed, a 
cardinal approached the pope's throne and asked if it could be 
taught, and that the pope replied he did not know; this was re- 



118 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

peated three times, the pope each time making the answer that 
had been made for ages, "I do not know," when, lo, the third time, 
he answered, "Yes!" 

While the church dignitaries were struggling with the problem 
of Mary's immaculate conception — creating a new "dogma" for 
the "faithful," the moral condition of the "Holy (?) City" was, 
as stated by W. J. Steelman, United States Consul at Rome, 
quoted in the New York Tribune, January 9, 1871: "It is a 
proverb among the Romans that 'if one would go to a house of 
ill-fame he must go by day ; at night the priests had all the places,' 
and another: 'All married women were seduced by the priests'." 

Leo XIII, 1878-1903 : How well this pope understood the sys- 
tem, and its laws, over which he was the head will be shown by 
many quotations from his Encyclical Letters in the pages to fol- 
low; every utterance of this pope was based upon some law or 
decree of the church issued by a pope or council. 

Pius X, 1903-1914: It seems strange that, as the Great War 
began, according to the prophecy of Cardinal Newman, Pope Pius 
X died — and the Black Pope, the General of the Jesuits, is said 
to have died within the same hour. Was that a coincidence, or 
Jesuitism in action, to put politicians at the head of the church? 
Romanism always makes and uses war to divert the human mind 
from other things, hoping thereby to advance the interests of the 
papacy — and it has always been successful in a large measure — 
and always will be; wars will never cease among men until the 
papacy has been reduced to the natural status in human society 
as that occupied by other sects. The German emperor nominated 
the present Jesuit General — and he admitted that order into Ger- 
many, abolishing the decree of banishment soon after the war 
began. 

Benedict XV, 1914 (present incumbent of Peter's chair) : Pro- 
German, Austrian and Turk to the core during the Great War; 
his private secretary, von Gerlach, was in the plot which de- 
stroyed two Italian battleships, killing a number of marines; he 
fled to Switzerland to escape the penalty pronounced by the 
Italian government against him; Benedict disclaims all knowl- 
edge of the deed, of course. 

Shortly after this "elevation," Benedict, in addressing his col- 
lege of cardinals, alluded to Protestant preachers of Italy as 
"emissaries of satan," that ought to be "destroyed." Of course, 
he spoke from the heart; that sentiment has characterized the 
papacy from the sixth century — it is in the oath of the bishops 
to-day; to "persecute" and make "war" is the distinguishing 
characteristic of papalism, and will continue to find expression 
as long as men are swayed by the will of an autocrat — the 
greatest of whom sits in the Vatican in Italy. 

There were 273 "claimants" for Peter's "chair"; now, referring 
to the third paragraph of the letter preceding this abbreviated 
history of the popes: If he "who handles pitch will become de- 
filed," what shall we say of a SYSTEM OF RELIGION claiming 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 119 

to be the only "true" religion of Jesus Christ, that gave the world 
the Ages Dark as Pitch, and leaders or heads as the above record 
depicts? What kind of stream can flow from that fountain? Un- 
checked, it would defile the world! 

In view of human nature and history of nearly two thousand 
years, the association wants to know if I have any suggestions to 
offer — Yes : I suggest turning to Christ, who died to set the cap- 
tives free and to overcome the works of the devil, thereby getting 
just as far away from the influence of Italian papalism as 
possible. 

Comparisons are said to be odious; but I most respectfully ask 
that the popes of Rome be compared with the Protestant or non- 
Catholic men who have been President of the United States, and 
also compare them with the men who have been Grand Masters 
of the Masonic Lodges in America; I believe these men, taken man 
for man, will compare favorably with those who claimed to be 
God's substitute on earth — and the average Protestant and Mason 
will compare favorably with the average member of the Catholic 
church ! 

"A tree is known by its fruit." What sort of "tree" is it that 
gave the world the popes? 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 8, 1917. 
Dear Sir: Have you any children? A little, soft-eyed girl, per- 
haps? a manly, clean little boy? I hope you have, they are the 
joy and crown of life. (1.) 

(2) But would you invite them to read immoral books, scur- 
rilous books, books that attack your character, that condemn your 
views of right and wrong, that undermine your authority, your 
place in your own family? Would you? No, of course not; but — 

(3) No "but" about it, sir: when you say No, as an honorable 
man must, you endorse the principle of the Index. The father 
that feels no responsibility toward his children and no self- 
respect, will likely condemn many salutary principles, including 
that of the Index, which a true father holds, but most people 
would hardly consider such a man a safe guide to follow. 

(4) Of course, you may not agree that the church has any re- 
sponsibility toward her children; but you need not agree to it; 
that her children agree to it is quite sufficient. You can under- 
stand the matter, however, and I feel sure that you must under- 
stand now that the Index, in principle at least, is a just, a wise, a 
considerate thing. 

(5) Governments have an Index, too, if you will think a min- 
ute ; it is practically a universal institution in the civilized world, 
which would not be long civilized without it. 

Very truly yours, 
JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

M. O. C. 



120 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

COMMENT 

In the above letter, as in those to follow, figures have been used 
at the beginning of paragraphs, and occasionally elsewhere; they 
refer to the paragraph which comments upon that particular 
part of letter. 

(1) Who robs priests and nuns of the legal right to enjoy this 
"joy and crown of life," God, or the pope through his Index? 

(2) No man would care to have his children read attacks made 
upon him, whether true or false; that point argues nothing; on 
the other hand, an honest man would invite his children to investi- 
gate if they did not honor him with their confidence — certainly he 
would not be considered a worthy father if he should mutilate, 
maim, deform and murder his children, as did the Roman church, 
to prevent them from exercising their own minds ; he would not 
employ fire and sword against them when they reached an age of 
maturity and attempted to exercise their own reason and judg- 
ment. The trouble with the Catholic church is, that it takes the 
wrong view of everything; a principle may be good if judiciously 
applied, but carried to the extreme, becomes wrong; for instance, 
Christ spoke of other sheep, which must be brought into the fold : 
the papal institution interprets that as meaning that God has 
given an Italian pope the right to force the "other" sheep into 
the papal fold, or destroy them. Rome misinterprets and mis- 
applies every principle of reason, justice and Christianity. 

The papal church makes no provision for the exercise of reason 
and private judgment; the Index has been in conflict with these 
natural rights of man since its adoption, which has kept the world 
in strife ever since — and will so continue — for, to be in conflict 
with nature's law means a penalty must be paid. 

The papal Index is but a modification of the hatred of the 
priesthood against free inquiry and research and "innovation" 
that began with the earliest Egyptian civilization — which has 
destroyed almost every ancient civilization, and will do that for 
any tolerating it. 

As long as the devil is in the world, spiritual dangers will sur- 
round the human soul, from the cradle to the grave; as long as 
finite man inhabits the earth he will be beset with physical dan- 
gers from his first to last breath — there is no place without 
danger, save in the grave, and if the Index places a person out of 
"danger," it has sealed him up in an intellectual tomb. 

In paragraphs 2, 3, 4, Mr. Farrell tries to defend the Index; 
he says that "her children agree to it" — no, they don't ! They get 
every phase of their religion as they get their name — it was 
ready-made for them when they were born; they had nothing to 
do with making it, cannot change it without considerable trouble, 
so they "agree" to it! 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 121 

The Blood of Christ bridges the chasm made between man and 
his God; the papal Index is an effort to span that chasm, as it 
were, by making it physically and mentally impossible for man to 
go astray by attempting to prevent a knowledge of good and evil. 
According to this, it is a pity there wasn't a pope dealing with 
Adam and Eve, instead of the Great I am — the pope would have 
destroyed the tree and removed it from their sight! The Index 
considers everything evil that does not come from the pope — be- 
cause it is itself a child of the pope's brain — and the history of the 
popes is sufficient to show what it leads to. 

(5) As to government Index: Where the principle is applied, 
the command emanates from the 'people, who vary it to suit emer- 
gencies, and remove it at will; the papal Index, like the Roman 
church, is an instrument or principle in the hands of ONE MAN 
— and he the worst type of autocracy — from whose decrees his 
"children" have no appeal, being themselves created by the same 
authority that issues regulations which keep them subject to his 
will. There is not a Catholic layman in the wide world who can 
be heard in regard to the enactment of any law by which he is to 
live. To stifle research is to destroy ambition, which offers a fer- 
tile field for mental and moral decay. By the way ! Catholic lay- 
men are not allowed to possess the Roman Pontificale, etc. WHY? 

As a preventive of crime, if the record of papists in America 
and other countries be taken as a criterion, the Index has been a 
failure; though it has been a wonderful safeguard of papal in- 
terests. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 9, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You have much to say in regard to the "Intention" 
of the church, the gist of which seems to be that she is a gigantic 
conspiracy kept secret by means of the Index while operating in 
virtue of the claim to infallibility. (1) 

(2) You adduce a few isolated circumstances and couple them 
with a few detached utterances of popes or bishops and consider 
your case is made, notwithstanding the conclusion must extend 
over many centuries and apply to many millions of persons in 
order to be even passibly true. Thus you offend logic in using 
particular cases to establish a general rule, although you do your- 
self the justice of saying your conclusion is a "guess." 

(3) You break another well recognized rule in the process; 
the rule that circumstantial evidence is not sufficient for convic- 
tion unless it excludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of 
guilt. Any lawyer will tell you this is a fundamental rule of prac- 
tice in the administration of justice. 

(4) There is no objection, of course, to your offering circum- 
stantial evience to show that the church is a conspiracy; but it 
must be subject to this rule, as on reflection you will surely agree. 

You will also, no doubt, agree, particularly as you yourself 
designate it as a "guess," that your conclusion does not rest on 



122 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

such evidence as excludes every other reasonable hypothesis. 
Therefore, it is merely a suspicion, and as such simply a shield. 
Very truly yours, 
JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

M. 0. C. 

COMMENT 

We ought to be impressed with the amount of space the associa- 
tion has devoted to denning correct rules of logic, etc. ; its general 
platitudes, obscuring the issues involved is also very marked. 

(1) Either Roman Catholicism or Protestantism is a gigantic 
conspiracy — the anti-Christ; judge these two trees by their 
fruits; that rule was given by the Master. That the popes were 
true fruit of the papal system, one will hardly deny — and such 
fruit! 

(2) Farrell says I "offend logic in using particular cases to 
establish a general rule;" let us see: Every case tried in the courts 
of the several States of the Union involving the questions of life, 
liberty and property, is determined largely by "using particular 
cases" to "establish a general rule" of law, termed "precedent," 
which is invoked by every competent attorney in his argument, 
and also used by the judge in formulating his rulings and charge 
to the jury; thousands of years ago, God handed down His Law 
through Moses — the Ten Commandments (which the popes have 
mutilated in part beyond recognition) ; the spirit and letter of 
those Commandments will confront every son of Adam's race 
before the Great Throne — yet they are somewhat "isolated." The 
Christ condensed the sense of the whole Law into one sentence, 
when He said to Nicodemus, "Ye must be born again." To a 
Romanist, it may be against the correct rules of logic to use this 
"particular case to establish a general rule": that all mankind 
must be born again before they can see God; but it makes no 
difference how many centuries pass, nor how many teeming mil- 
lions of people come and go with them, the "general rule" estab- 
lished by this "particular case" can never be "isolated." (Roman- 
ism substitutes baptism for the new birth; salvation is sought 
through good works and purgatorial fire : if the atoning Blood of 
Christ does not cleanse from all sin, a soul may burn in the fires 
of purgatory until God abdicates His throne in favor of the devil 
and that soul will continue to burn.) 

Mr. Farrell says I "break another recognized rule in the 
process"; it will be seen throughout these pages that I do not rely 
on "circumstantial" evidence; but where I do, it will be apparent 
to the "jury," who are at liberty to give it such weight in arriving 
at the truth in the case as they deem wise. 

Guilt can be established by direct, indirect and circumstantial 
evidence — direct being the most conclusive. Now, I indict the 
Roman Catholic church, called the papacy, with high crime 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 123 

against the human race in that it conspires, secretly and other- 
wise, to separate man from his Creator, from temporal rulers not 
Catholic, and subjugating man to the papal religion which is in 
reality a gigantic political conspiracy against the peace and hap- 
piness of the world, consigning to purgatory for disobedience — 
all of which is contrary to the laws of God, common sense, and 
reason. 

Just a word in passing as to "guessing": when a fact can not 
be established by positive, direct evidence, it is then legitimate to 
"guess" or surmise as to the facts in the case, which may be 
developed by "circumstantial evidence;" for instance, for approxi- 
mately fifty years, beginning in 1378, there were two or more 
popes all the time — each duly "elevated" — and the "holy fathers," 
who make tradition, were not able to "guess" nor prove, even with 
the aid (?) of the Holy Spirit, which one was the real head of the 
Italian church; again, I read in the Manual of Christian Doctrine 
that laymen cannot have a copy of the Pontificale Romanum, 
Breviary, Ritual, etc., and in correspondence with an officer of a 
Catholic society, Mr. John J. McCreary, lawyer, I discovered that 
he is either without one of those books, or if having access thereto, 
attempts to conceal the "gigantic" conspiracy of the papal church 
as shown by the direct evidence contained in the bishop's oath; 
these circumstances are sufficient to convict, although the con- 
clusion is a "guess" based upon such circumstances. 

The truth of a proposition may be established to the satisfac- 
tion of a reasoning mind by Confession, Documentary Evidence, 
Direct Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence. Documentary Evi- 
dence may be a written statement by one in possession of the 
facts ; Direct Evidence, when facts are revealed by one who was a 
party to, or present at, the commission of a crime; Circumstan- 
tial, where all the circumstances surrounding a case, based upon 
human experience, proves the existence of a fact to a reasonable 
certainty; also, there is State's Evidence — where one was a party 
to a crime, but turned State's Evidence, incriminating himself 
along with others implicated. 

Confession: Where a person acknowledges before proper offi- 
cials that he did the deed; this determines, judicially, the issue to 
which it relates. 

Admission of guilt obviates the necessity of proof. 

Documentary Evidence: Written or printed statements con- 
cerning a crime, either by one who did the deed or saw it com- 
mitted. 

Direct Evidence : Where one or more people saw a crime com- 
mitted; this establishes the fact to be proved. 

Circumstantial Evidence : Where a person was known to have 
been at the place at the time a crime was committed; tends to 
prove a fact. 



124 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

"Suspicion" is that element which attaches to a person arsing- 
from his personal appearance, manner and general reputation 
(i. e.y his "history"). Suspicion, alone, is not sufficient to convict; 
but it may lead to the apprehension of the criminal, or cause his 
withdrawal from a community, which may be preventive of crime. 

Keep these rules of evidence in mind ; they will apply in some 
manner to every charge made against the papacy; the "jury" will 
please disregard any charge in the indictment that is not sup- 
ported by said rules of evidence. 

To appreciate the weight and importance to be attached to 
evidence, it is necessary to know what opportunity the witness 
had to learn the facts, as well as his relation to the parties being 
tried. 

In the investigation of my charges against the SYSTEM, it is 
necessary to use every sort of evidence that is admissible in a 
court of justice, and know the relation each witness sustains to 
that institution, his means of knowing what is the truth of a 
question, and his interest in concealing the truth and facts in 
the case. 

The Roman church is divided into two branches : the "Teaching 
Church," which is the pope, and the "Hearing Church," consisting 
of laymen; the "Hearing Church" could fall away, yet the Cath- 
olic church would remain; but if the "Teaching Church," the pope, 
should fall away, there would be no Catholic church. The pope 
appoints the cardinals, they elect the pope ; all priests are directly 
under authority of bishops who are consecrated by the pope or his 
legate, while laymen are under the authority of the bishop through 
the priest — they are as newborn babes in a home, who are power- 
less to resist, and consequently must take anything given them 
without protest; they have no voice in creating new dogmas or 
laws ; they are as children, who are taught that the pope can com- 
mand nothing wrong; they are indifferent to the secret teaching 
of the pope in those books which they cannot possess or read, 
though authenticated by papal authority; if the pope commands 
the execution of all the requirements contained in the oath of their 
bishop, as "faithful" children they must obey. THIS constitutes, 
in part, the charge that the papal church is a secret, gigantic con- 
spiracy: it always has perfectly arranged machinery by which it 
can hurl men at each other's throats, if the pope should see fit to 
"press the button." 

The pope of Rome, being the sole head and authority, calls him- 
self Christ's Vice-Gerent, having himself declared Infallible at 
the Vatican Council; Catholic writers have very little to say 
about this decree ; it is said that, when it was up for action, 150 
of the 692 members present withdrew, being opposed to the adop- 
tion of the decree that the Jesuit order had struggled to get 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 125 

enacted century after century — a dogma that had been rejected 
by other infallible councils. This decree acknowledges that all 
popes and councils were equally infallible. Bishop Strosmayer 
denounced it on the Vatican floor, saying that history proved there 
were frequent conflicts between popes and councils and between 
popes and popes; the bishops and cardinals at this council knew 
history and Catholic dogma, consequently about one-fourth of 
them dissented ; they knew it was an imposition, and that it con- 
tained the germ of death to the papacy. 

Realizing its danger, all Catholics try to restrict the applica- 
tion and scope of the decree of Infallibility; that it is recognized 
as applying strictly to things spiritual. 

The mission of Christ upon the earth was to perfect the plan 
of redemption, destroy the works of satan, and teach man the way 
home; although He was to return to His Father, He promised 
not to leave His people alone, but would send the Comforter, who 
would "teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance 
whatsoever I have said unto you," John 14:26. The pope says 
he is holding the place of God on earth, and that through him 
God makes known His will — which is visualizing the manifesta- 
tion of God in spiritual things; this demands a like means of 
teaching or reminding, equivalent to the work of the Spirit, there- 
fore the pope uses the pen and issues Encyclical Letters, Bulls, 
Decrees, Allocutions, Constitutions, etc., visualized means of 
bringing to the remembrance of Catholics whatsoever he as god 
commands. To deny this is a denial of papal infallibility : if God 
is infallible, then the pope, if he is holding the place of God, must 
be infallible; and if the Holy Spirit is infallible in His office, so 
likewise must the means used by the pope, as a substitute for the 
Holy Spirit, be infallible — i. e., his letters, bulls, decrees, etc., by 
which he "impresses" upon the hearts of his children his will. 

God is Infallible, Immutable — so also the Holy Spirit, in all 
things; hence, if the pope does not possess these characteristics 
in all things, he is an imposter. Farrell acknowledged that the 
pope is not infallible in everything! 

(4) I am willing for the average American citizen to consider 
the evidence herein, and I will be satisfied with the verdict! 

Mr. Farrell has a penchant for declaring "correct rules," and 
the effect of "circumstantial evidence;" he should also indicate 
on what point I violated said rules, or used circumstantial evi- 
dence not applicable; for instance, he should have challenged my 
criticism of his answer to Question 13, or 29 ; these are the "posts" 
he should have "hitched" to — but he wouldn't, because he couldn't; 
he did the best he could, though — let them severely alone! 



126 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 10, 1917. 
Dear Sir: Regarding the "Intention" of the Index: 
Refer to Leo XIII, Encyclical of January 25, 1897, relating to 
prohibited books, in the opening sentence of which the aim sought 
is stated — "that the integrity of Christian faith and morals may 
suffer no diminution." This, of course, is a worthy purpose, only 
you suspect it is not Leo's real purpose. (1). 

(2) But mark further on: "The early days of the church were 
witnesses of the zeal of St. Paul in this respect ('the converted 
heathens brought him their books to be burned,' Acts xix:19); 
and every subsequent age has witnessed the vigilance of the 
Fathers, the commands of bishops and the decrees of councils in 
this direction." So you must connect the "Intention" you impute 
to Leo with a like "Intention" in his predecessors and other 
bishops, going link by link, back to the Apostles. 

(3) They all did the same thing. Ostensibly, they had the same 
purpose, a worthy purpose, to safeguard faith and morals. You 
say their "intention" was criminal, to keep their followers in 
ignorance, and you foolishly imagine they have succeeded for 
sixty generations with their followers in every walk of life and 
numbering hundreds of millions and scattered all over the world. 

Do you really believe yours is the only REASONABLE hypoth- 
esis to be drawn from the circumstances? 

If you don't, you are out of court. If you do, God help you, man. 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

M. 0. C. 

COMMENT 

(1) Change the word "Christian" to "Papal," and I will con- 
cede all the rest. 

Leo XIII was pope twenty-five years; his predecessor, Pius IX, 
thirty-one ; if any men ever knew the spirit and genius of popery, 
they were the men. Catholics must believe what they taught, and 
be obedient to their decrees; so we must look to the popes and 
councils for information as to what is the "intention" of papal- 
ism — not what some obscure, priest-directed laymen may say. It 
is from considering evidence from the highest source that we 
arrive at a conclusion — and the popes furnish that evidence. 

(2) It required just fifteen hundred and one years for popery 
to discover the need of the Index (although Gregory the Great 
burnt the priceless library of the Caesars, mutilated statuary, 
drove out the mathematicians and scholars — which was the begin- 
ning, and cause, of the Dark Ages). Alexander VI, a man "so 
damnably vile" that his record could not be printed — the man 
who bought "Peter's Chair" with gold — established the Index. So 
abominable was this man, that six temporal rulers demanded his 
reform, or they would have him deposed; their messengers were 
insulted and driven from the papal court; in this case, necessity 
being the mother of invention, Alexander issued an edict for Ger- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 127 

many, "to restrain printers from reproducing writings directed 
against the Catholic faith or calculated to give scandal to Catho- 
lics" (Pastor's History of the Popes, vol. 6, pp. 154-5), which gave 
the world that fetter to progress, the Index. 

Leo X had to contend with Martin Luther and the Reformation, 
so he enlarged upon the principles of the Index. In the fifteenth, 
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the popes found it a very 
present help in their times of trouble, to keep the "faithful" from 
scanning their records, and to prevent others from learning what 
the popes did not want to be known. 

The efficacy of the Index was recognized as the best means of 
"closing" the records of popes and priests, and to prevent anyone 
from investigating any question except under papal censorship 
and supervision; hence, we find Leo XIII saying — and here he is 
exercising his SUPREMACY— in Decree 48, on p. 421, of Ency- 
clical Letters, January 25, 1897, setting out the Law of the Index : 

"Those who, without the approbation of the ordinary (bishop?) 
print or cause to be printed, books of the Holy Scripture, or notes 
or commentaries on the same, incur ipso facto excommunication." 

This is quite an expansion of the Index as at first instituted by 
Alexander ! 

According to the Canon Law of the papal church, it is no crime, 
in a legal sense, to kill one who has been excommunicated. The 
Rheimish Bible, published for the use of priests in 1815, duly cen- 
sored according to the Rules of the Index, in notes on John x:l 
and Heb. v:l, says: "All Protestant clergy are thieves, murderers 
and ministers of the devil." (So said the present pope in his 
address to his sacred college of cardinals, 1914.) On Rev. xi:6-20: 
"Christian people, bishops especially, should have great zeal 
against heretics, and hate them . . . after the manner of holy 
Elias that in zeal killed four hundred and fifty false prophets." 
(See if that is not in accord with the bishop's oath, to-day!) On 
Acts xix:19: "A Christian should deface and burn all heretical 
books." In England, in 1543, the papists secured an Act of Par- 
liament which permitted "Noblemen or Gentlemen to have the 
Bible read to him in or about the house, but no Woman, Artificer, 
Apprentice, Journeyman, nor Servingman under the degree of 
Yeoman; nor any Husbandman or Laborer might read it." Bur- 
nett, History of Ref., p. 30. 

With the above facts in mind, we are better prepared to con- 
sider Mr. Farrell's reference to the Index, and what Leo said 
Paul did in Acts xix:19: Paul was preaching among the Ephe- 
sians; under divine direction his ministry was attended with great 
results; many of the heathen believed his message of the Cruci- 
fied Christ — here's the account: "19. Many of them also which 
used curious arts brought their books together, and burnt them 



128 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

before all men." Carefully observe, that they "brought" their 
books — Paul did not have to threaten them with Excommunication 
and removal from earth by death, to get them; but when the 
Christ was made known, they choose Him in the place of what 
they had, displaying the free moral agency requisite to please 
God, and the right to exercise private judgment. They witnessed 
no "vigilance" on the part of Paul in this respect; he issued no 
"decree" concerning the matter ; so this breaks the link the papacy 
tried to forge between them and the Apostles fifteen centuries 
thereafter. 

Now, as to the "books" the converts voluntarily gave up to the 
flames : There were no books in those days, as we understand the 
word. The Ephesians used "curious arts," that is, magic, arts, 
sorceries, incantations, etc., and their "books" were Ephesian 
characters, which appear to have been "amulets" inscribed with 
strange characters, that were carried on the body for the purpose 
of curing diseases, repelling evil spirits, and for preserving from 
evils of different kinds — just as the negro wears his rabbit foot, 
and the Catholic his Scapular — and those "books" merely taught 
the science, manner of formation, and use of those charms. So, 
we understand, they voluntarily "brought" and destroyed their 
"books" treating of "curious arts." 

I will admit that the Index has been a success in preserving 
papal faith and morals, but it has not served the Kingdom of 
Christ among men, nor benefited the morality of nations sub- 
mitting to it; for on page 383 of the prayer book censored by 
Cardinal Gibbons we are told that the Scapular or Little Habit 
of the Blessed Virgin (Mary) was, according to a "most authentic 
tradition," given by Virgin Mary herself, as a pledge of her love 
and patronage, to Simon Stock, General of the Carmelites, July 
16, 1215. There are now several different kinds of scapulars which 
the "faithful" throughout the world wear, suspended under their 
clothing from a string tied around the neck, to prevent sickness, 
keep off evil spirits, etc., just as the Ephesians did! Not only 
does the Roman church make and sell scapulars for those pur- 
poses, but blesses and sells little charms — images, of "St." An- 
thony, who commanded a mule to bow down before him and wor- 
ship the "Sacred Host" (pancake-god) which he held in his hands, 
and also preached Christ to the fishes of the sea ; the magic of this 
charm is to aid the purchaser in locating lost articles ; then they 
ihave the image of "St." Joseph — it assists the purchaser to get 
rich — then there is the "Sacred Heart of Jesus" ( !) which helps 
in securing a wife or husband, as the case may be, for the pur- 
chaser; and then there are the purgatorial societies, in which you 
buy a policy as you would any other fire insurance, which may be 
valid for the use of your friends, relatives or yourself! (In Eng- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 129 

land the law against Superstition prevents bequests for this pur- 
pose.) 

This touches upon only one of the interests of the church of 
Rome served and conserved by the Index: the papacy threatens 
to excommunicate any of the "faithful" who may read a book 
exposing these hypocritical, blasphemous things, or the SYSTEM 
which commands their use. There is not a person in the world 
who can defend this practice of the Roman institution, either in 
print or on the platform, before intelligent people, so the pope 
uses the Index to keep his subjects from reading about them, and 
forbids attending any meeting where they are discussed and ex- 
posed. Should a Catholic ask a priest concerning dogmas or 
decrees of the Italian church which does not square with reason 
and common sense, the priest will either reply that it does not 
become him to be asking such questions, or he will cry "Creeda !" 
— the church says so — and that settles it: it becomes forever a 
"closed" question to that soul. 

(3) The origin of the Index has been explained; its "intention" 
then was to shield the papacy and its priests; it has been enlarged 
since its beginning in 1501 so that for about thirteen generations 
(instead of sixty) it has kept the Catholic mind buried and steeped 
in papal lore of the Middle Ages. 

Idolatry caused the loss of the Ten Tribes of Israel; it will 
destroy a soul, or hundreds of million souls, scattered all over the 
world, through successive ages; if superstitious dread of purga- 
tory and priestly powers can keep one soul from free inquiry and 
thus pervert it, the system with its "sufficient number of priests" 
can just as easily produce the same effect on hundreds of millions 
in all ages. 

I do not believe I am "out of court" in this matter, and will not 
be, until the Roman church can defend wearing scapulars before 
an audience of intelligent people in debate, or prove the Bible 
untrue. To me, however, these matters are of no personal con- 
cern — and would not be considered were it not for the fact that 
the same power that makes Catholics and shapes their "faith and 
morals," also requires them to believe they have the right to make 
me and my fellow-countrymen buy scapulars and bury Reason 
under the papal Index — which can be done, if the public schools 
are turned over to the pope's "children" and they are placed in 
political positions where they can assist in the propaganda to 
"Make America Dominantly Catholic." 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 11, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Touching the doctrine of Infallibility. 

Your not knowing the teaching of the church in this matter 
has caused you to set up the shield of suspicion here, too, and you 
suspect the purpose of infallibility to be also the shackling of the 
mind. 



130 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Now you do not have to subscribe to the doctrine of infallibility 
in order to understand what it is and what is its purpose. So far 
as shackling the mind is concerned, its purpose is not to shackle, 
but to free, the mind. And that is its effect, too. Let us see, now. 

The human mind is hampered, hindered, halted, held, chained, 
enslaved, and all that, by one thing-, and only one, and that is 
Doubt. Say what you please, "The truth shall make you free." 
Certainty is the very essence of intellectual liberty; doubt the 
very bond of intellectual subjection. In every phase of mental 
activity, touching every subject that engages the human mind, 
where there is doubt there is no progress ; where doubt is removed 
the mind goes forward to the end. 

The doctrine of infallibility has for its single aim and purpose, 
the removal of doubt in respect to faith and morals; its purpose 
therefore, is to free the mind. It does actually remove doubt 
among Catholics ; its effect therefore is to free the mind. 

You say it doesn't do that. But for Catholics, my friend, it 
does; so there you are. They, at least, are free. 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

I have gazed with wonder and admiration on the great Mogul 
engine; have never built one, nor been present as each piece of 
steel and iron and wood and copper was shaped and assembled; 
but in viewing it as a whole, while IGNORANT as to the relation 
one part sustained to the others, I had no DOUBT as to the inter- 
dependence of one part on the other, nor any DOUBT as to what 
was the "intention" for creating that ponderous piece of perfect- 
fitting machinery. If I had never seen or heard of a steam engine, 
in my IGNORANCE I may DOUBT what may be told me con- 
cerning it; but, after seeing it in operation, I am no longer 
IGNORANT of it, therefore have no DOUBT of its capacity and 
speed — hence, we see that it is IGNORANCE which causes 
DOUBT and unbelief, which can be dissipated only by a personal, 
individual investigation of the subject — and it is ignorance, not 
doubt, that chains the mind. 

Thomas was IGNORANT of Christ and His teaching, therefore 
he was hampered with doubt; but when he saw Christ — investi- 
gated the nail-prints himself, ignorance was displaced "by knowl- 
edge", and doubt vanished. 

Mr. Farrell uses the word "doubt" as a noun : "a fluctuation of 
mind respecting truth or propriety, arising from DEFECT OF 
KNOWLEDGE OR EVIDENCE," and that the doctrine of infal- 
libility destroys that condition of mind in matters of faith and 
morals ; he thus shows that the Index and Infallibility are merely 
interdependent parts of the great papal political machine for 
world-government. The Index prohibits a personal investigation 
of a given subject, while the Catholic is required to accept what 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 131 

the pope declares to be true: he does not examine the evidence 
personally and secure a knowledge of the question, as a necessary 
means of freeing the mind from the chains of ignorance and 
superstition — he pins his faith to the word of the pope ! 

Ignorance is a want, absence, or destitution of knowledge. An 
Indian would accept onion seed for gunpowder, and pay well for 
it; was his trouble "doubt" or "ignorance"? When some calamity 
besets a scapular-wearer, what excuse does the priest offer? The 
Indian, when his gun failed to fire, scalped his deceiver ! 

If we are content to be as dumb brutes, with bridles upon our 
intellectual faculties, and be driven in any direction that may 
please him who holds the lines, we may be "free"; but this cannot 
be granted as long as man is born with an individuality, a reason- 
ing faculty and a capacity for acquiring knowledge; Mahommet 
may burn the Alexandrian library, Gregory that of the Caesars — 
but they could not thereby convince any one that they were the 
sole possessors of the truth. 

The very existence of a controversy precludes establishing the 
truth without evidence to prove it: have Catholics a personal 
knowledge that the pope is infallible in anything? What line of 
investigation have they pursued to secure the knowledge which 
removes doubt? They say, "The church says so"; granted; but 
how many times did the church say, "I do not know"? And who is 
the "church"? The pope! To free the Catholic mind from 
doubt: "fluctuation of mind respecting truth," the pope makes a 
declaration, the church says "Creeda!" "Infallible!" the Index 
says, "Enough — search no further — it's a 'closed' question!" And 
it is — to Catholics — who are required to make it a closed question 
to all others. 

The association seems to have confused "ignorance" with 
"doubt." Man was practically ignorant of God and His purposes : 
Christ came to manifest the will of the Father; there can be no 
doubt where one is ignorant of a fact; a doubt arises in the mind 
relative to any question of fact, and remains until it is removed 
by such evidence as conveys a knowledge of it. 

Mr. Farrell says Infallibility removes doubt from the minds of 
Catholics and makes them free; in other words, they must believe 
what the pope teaches through his priests as if it were God speak- 
ing to them, as He did to Moses on the Mount — that this is a 
dangerous, undemocratic, progress-destroying doctrine will be 
amply demonstrated as we progress with these letters. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 13, 1917. 
Dear Sir: ' You may say that you do not object to the church 
having dogmas, but to her claim that they are defined by infallible 
authority, even when, it might be, the pope declaring them is a 
wicked man. (1) 



132 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Which would convince me, if your paper left any doubt about it, 
though it does not, that you do not understand the doctrine of 
Papal Infallibility. Again reminding you, in order to disarm your 
suspicion as far as possible, that you do not need to agree to this 
doctrine in order to understand it, I shall try to make it clear, 
citing the Catholic Encyclopedia, as general authority for what 
follows on this score. 

(2) First, we must distinguish the Infallibility of the pope 
from his Supremacy. Your failure to do this has caused you to 
cite as infallible many utterances of Pope Leo XIII which, though 
authoritative, are not infallible. To tell you the plain truth, not 
one citation you make from him is of infallible, as distinguished 
from supreme, authority. It is doubtful if Leo XIII ever once 
called into exercise the infallible magisterium of his office; or if 
any other pope has done so since Pius IX denned the doctrine of 
the Immaculate Conception. 

(3) As Supreme Head of the Church, the pope in all that per- 
tains to the church has supreme authority, executive, legislative, 
judicial, as preacher, doctor, and pastor. As the Infallible Voice 
of the church he is limited strictly to the DEFINITION of 
DOGMAS on faith and morals. 

Mark the emphasis thoroughly; and more on this Monday. 
Very truly yours, 
JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

M. O. C. 

COMMENT 

I am not interested in the dogmas of the papal church per se, 
nor their origin; but the effect they have on those who enjoy the 
rights of citizenship; I am concerned with the demands made by 
the head of that system for Catholics to exert themselves to make 
the laws of the land conform to the laws of the Italian church. 

When I am convinced that God uses the devil to preach redemp- 
tion to a lost world, I will believe He uses wicked popes for the 
same purpose; Paul said to the Romans, "Know ye not, that to 
whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are, 
whether of sin unto death or of obedience unto righteousness?" 
Rom. vi:16. Christ said, "No man can serve two masters." For 
a pope to be like Christ, he must be infallible in all things — to say 
he is in some, but not in others, makes him, it seems to me, the 
servant of two masters — riding horses going in opposite direc- 
tions: what does the history of the popes teach us? 

(2) As to the distinction between papal infallibility and su- 
premacy, there may be an impressive difference to Catholics, but 
to me they are twin doctrines — a sort of double-barrel-gun affair 
— one shooting a little farther than the other. From the year 
606 A. D. the world has been kept in a turmoil by efforts to estab- 
lish and maintain papal supremacy. It makes no material differ- 
ence to the world whether the pope speaks as the infallible or 
supreme head of the church: in either case he demands submis- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 133 

sion, or obedience; if this were not true, it would be foolish for a 
pope to issue bulls, encyclicals, etc., which are based upon the 
dogmas and laws of the church, the purpose of said laws being to 
enforce his infallibility in matters of faith. He who has the power 
to define a dogma must also be clothed with authority to issue a 
decree requiring its acceptance and observance on the part of all 
who have been baptized; and with the infallible end of the matter, 
that is for Catholics to worry over, but as to the latter, his 
supremacy, his presumed right to enforce his dogmas and de- 
crees, all free men must be concerned. Infallibility gives the pope 
the right to define a matter for belief, supremacy gives him the 
power to enforce it, for he is, as stated by the association in para- 
graph 2, "supreme ... executive, legislative, judicial." As the 
infallible Voice of the Church alone he would be perfectly harm- 
less and unobjectionable; but as chief legislator, judge and execu- 
tive he constitutes a menace to the human race. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 12, 1917 
Dear Sir: You know, we are taught truths of mathematics, 
and many other "dogmas" of science and of life, long before our 
minds can grasp the reason for them. (1) 

(2) If this practice were displaced by scepticism, so that each 
succeeding generation, denouncing all faith, denying all truth and 
relying upon unaided reason alone, would demand "proof" and 
"understanding" before believing anything, the intellectual ad- 
vancement of the race would not be possible. 

(3) The heathens, in the absence of religious dogma, continued 
to sacrifice human beings to their gods long after attaining to a 
high order of civilization in other respects (i. e., where they had 
dogma) ; each succeeding generation was born into the same in- 
tellectual bondage of ignorance and doubt that clouded the infancy 
of the one before. 

(4) With a man here yesterday and gone to-morrow, his vision 
of life is cut off by the horizon of a day, which is too short a time 
for the most brilliant mind to solve the mysteries of existence, 
here and hereafter; and this is saying nothing of the minds of 
the multitude. 

(5) To deny the value of dogma is to disown for one's self and 
to deny to posterity, the greatest heritage of the human mind. 

Very truly yours, 
JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

M. O. C. 

COMMENT 

(1) The word "dogma" means "to think"; as now used by the 
papal church it means: a settled opinion, principle, maxim or 
tenet, especially in matters of faith and morals; the pope alone 
can define a dogma, therefore he alone has the right "to think" 
and investigate for the rest of the world. While "we are taught 
truths of mathematics," etc., before we can grasp the reason for 



134 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

them, yet as we develop physically and mentally, our minds ex- 
pand and we acquire an understanding of the reasons for them; 
take mathematics: a child begins school practically ignorant of 
quantities, but as the apple is divided by the teacher into two 
equal parts, and four equal parts, the young mind begins to 
understand and to reason; as a necessity for the knowledge of 
mathematics is realized, it may be pursued through the higher 
branches; (2) as advancement is made in the science, a most im- 
portant fact is discovered, namely, that every question can be an- 
swered to "a mathematical certainty" — the science offers 'proof to 
the und&r standing , demonstrates the truth of the matter proposed 
to the child for belief. A teacher may inform the pupil that "two 
plus two equals four" and command the child to profess to believe 
it, which it may do; but unless it is taught all the rules of the 
science by which it is enabled to "investigate" and "prove" what 
it is taught to profess, it does not know that two and two equals 
four — cannot prove it, therefore its progress in mathematics 
would be limited indeed. Apply this principle to "faith and 
morals" and we have the Dark Ages. 

It was a "dogma" among physicians many years ago to deprive 
the patient of as much blood as possible — destroy the life-sustain- 
ing element — as a means of "curing" disease. This criminal prac- 
tice was abandoned as ignorance gave way to knowledge, which 
resulted from investigations pursued independently by different 
men; the "dogmas" of the pope cannot undergo this process. If 
the pope declares there is a purgatory, the Catholic will say so, 
too ; the pope does the thinking for the Catholic, and forbids him 
to question his declaration or to make an independent investiga- 
tion of the subject. This applies to every question arising under 
faith and morals — the pope declares that "two and two equals 
four," which prevents free inquiry and intellectual advancement; 
it is well that the pope forbids investigation of his dogmas, for if 
one does, he will become lost in the maze of ancient paganism: 
holy water, purgatory, vestal virgins, image worship, blessed 
candles, scapulars, beads, popes, sacred relics, mother of god, etc. ; 
the Index is the instrument used by the papal institution to pre- 
vent investigation of any of these things. 

Mr. Farrell is wrong regarding the heathens; it was a "dogma" 
among the Brahmins, taught by priests, that when a woman lost 
her husband she must be burnt alive on the corpse in order to 
please their gods ; heathens were taught to believe that the birth 
of a female child signified that their god was displeased, and the 
only way to placate him was to consign the child to the waters to 
be devoured by alligators. He is correct, though, concerning the 
perpetuation of these heathen customs and "dogmas" — "each suc- 
ceeding generation was born" under a system of ready-made 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 135 

faith; and what he says in regard to them, I say respecting papal- 
ism; the principle of the Index in the hands of the Roman priest- 
hood chains the intellect so that people otherwise intelligent bow 
down to a piece of pancake, worship it as God, then eat it, pro- 
fessing to believe they are actually eating Jesus Christ, and mil- 
lions of human beings have been sacrificed on the altars of the 
papal god because they said the priests of Rome could not prove 
the truth of that dogma defined by the pope and proposed for. 
their belief; and it is written in the fundamental law of the papal 
church that the pope has the right to murder dissenters,TO-D AY ; 
the theology of the Roman church also teaches that "right"; so I 
ask Mr. Farrell to state what is the material difference between 
the dogma of the heathen requiring the wife to be burnt with the 
dead body of the husband, and the "right" of the Catholic church 
to burn man and intelligence on the funeral pyre kindled by papal 
dogma and superstition. Right here in Macon, Ga., in this, the 
twentieth century, papists endeavored to "close" the city hall 
against lecturers on these dogmas of the pope, who were to 
address non-Catholics! 

(4) I admit the truth of this statement; and because it is true, 
I contend that every fact that has been proved by the best scholars 
throughout the ages should be accessible to every man to-day : the 
history of successes and failures should be an open book so that 
to-day and to-morrow man may profit by them; if they are 
"closed" by any creed or dogma, the result will be intellectual 
stagnation and retrogression. 

(5) The effort to deny man the open Bible and free inquiry is 
an effort to subjugate the human mind to the "dogma" — 
"thought" — of one man; to forbid Reason the right to demand 
"proof" of the pope that he THINKS RIGHT, is to destroy the 
purpose of man's creation and make him unworthy of Redemp- 
tion; it clamps the wheels of progress, and steeps people in ignor- 
ance that results in mental slavery and misery. Scan the pages 
of history of any country dominated by the pope since the year 
606 for proof of the foreging statements! The Great Jehovah 
has never tried to FORCE man against his WILL; He says "Try 
Me," "Prove Me," "Come, let us reason together." Christ said 
"Whosoever WILL"— the pope says "Everybody MUST," and 
that's why I oppose popery. The dogmas of the pope have not 
benefited the Latin races, they cannot benefit America ! 

The Good Book tells us how the devil attempted to overthrow 
God in His Celestial Abode; failing then, he now declares to all 
mankind that he "holds the place of God Almighty" on earth — 
and some people believe him, while others are too cowardly to 
deny it ! 



136 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 15, 1917. 

Dear Sir: The pope is not infallible in every teaching he 
utters; not even in every one he utters concerning faith and 
morals. He is infallible only when denning dogmas of faith and 
morals. 

And in defining a dogma of faith and morals his infallibility is 
limited strictly to the definition of the dogma; it does not extend 
to any amplification, exegesis, argument or commentary that may 
attend the definition. (1.) The church holds that in defining 
dogma of faith and morals, the pope cannot err. Here is the 
Vatican Council definition of Papal Infallibility: 

"The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when 
in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians 
he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine 
of faith or morals to be held by the whole church — is, by reason 
of the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, pos- 
sessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished 
His church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and 
morals, and such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreform- 
able of their own nature." (Sess. Ill, Cap. IV.) 

"It is to be noted in the first place that what is claimed for the 
pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration. In 
the next place the infallibility claimed for the pope is no more 
than that which the church as a whole possesses. In the third 
place, infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the 
pope. . . . He must teach in his public and official capacity as 
pastor and doctor of all Christians, not as theologian, preacher or 
allocutionist, nor as temporal prince, or as mere bishop of the See 
of Rome . . . 

"It must be evident that he intends to determine some point of 
doctrine in an absolutely final and IRREVOCABLE way. ... It 
must be clear that he intends to demand INTERNAL assent from 
all the faithful under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck." 
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 769.) 

You can readily see, therefore, that the infallibility of the pope 
is much more narrowly restricted than you imply in your paper. 

Very trulv yours, 
JJF/MOC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

While the dogma of infallibility may be restricted to defining 
dogmas, there is no limit to the co-equal power requiring uncon- 
ditional submission and obedience to his temporal supremacy and 
authority, which is the objectionable and dangerous feature of 
Roman Catholicism. 

The Vatican Council that passed the above dogma of papal in- 
fallibility also decreed the supreme power and authority of the 
pope in matters not pertaining to infallibility, and it is as essen- 
tial for a Catholic to believe in, and be submissive to, the pope's 
AUTHORITY as in his INFALLIBILITY. The decree itself for- 
ever settles that question. It seems strange that Mr. Farrell did 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 137 

not quote it along with the first part. The claim set up by the 
pope that he has supreme authority over all Christians is the bone 
of contention. In the "Dogmatic Canons and Decrees," imprima- 
tur of Cardinal Farley, New York, 1912, we read from that Vati- 
can Decree: 

"Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our 
Lord the Roman church possesses a superiority of ordinary power 
over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the 
Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which 
all, of whatever right and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both 
individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hier- 
archical subordination and true obedience, to submit, NOT ONLY 
IN MATTERS WHICH PERTAIN TO FAITH AND MORALS, 
but also IN THOSE THAT APPERTAIN TO DISCIPLINE 
AND GOVERNMENT of the church throughout the world. . .. . 
This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from which no one can 
deviate without loss of faith and salvation. 

"If, then, any shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office 
merely of inspection or direction and not full and supreme power 
of jurisdiction over the universal church, NOT ONLY IN 
THINGS WHICH BELONG TO FAITH AND MORALS, but 
also in those which relate to the DISCIPLINE and GOVERN- 
MENT of the church throughout the world; or assert that he 
possesses merely the principal part, and not all the FULLNESS 
of this SUPREME POWER, both over each and all the churches, 
and over each and all the pastors and the faithful — let him be 
anathema." 

In the language of Mr. Gladstone, I say the "Third Chapter 
(of the Vatican Council) on Universal Obedience is a formidable 
rival to the Fourth Chapter on Infallibility. . . . The Third has 
an overawing splendor; the Fourth, an iron grip. ... As he (the 
pope) MUST be obeyed in ALL HIS JUDGMENTS, though NOT 
ex cathedra, it seems a pity he could not likewise give the com- 
forting assurance that they are ALL certain to be right" 

In the above letter Mr. Farrell substantiates the logic of Mr. 
Gladstone's remarks; he says "the pope is not infallibile in every 
teaching he utters; not even in every one he utters concerning 
faith and morals." Notwithstanding this fact, that the pope is 
liable to err in his JUDGMENTS, the salvation of Catholics de- 
pends upon submission and obedience to him, right or wrong. 

(1) At this point Mr. Farrell says "The church holds that in 
defining dogmas of faith and morals the pope cannot err," but he 
does not, neither can he, say that Catholics must not be obedient 
or that it is not commanded. While it may be impossible for the 
pope to err in defining matters of faith, yet he can err as supreme 
judge, legislator and executive^ for the whole world, still the Third 
Chapter binds every Catholic in conscience to obedience to him 
when he is exercising his fallible "judgment" in matters not per- 



138 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

taining to faith and morals, under pain of eternal damnation; 
therefore, every utterance from Leo XIII cited in this book is 
valid, in force, and must be observed by Roman Catholics as 
"expediency" may render possible. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 18, 1917. 
Dear Sir : Now as to the infallible prerogative in case the pope 
should be a wicked man. 

(1) Inasmuch as the pope is not clothed with infallibility for 
his own benefit, but for the benefit of the Christians of the world, 
in order that they might be free from doubt in regard to the 
truths essential to Christian salvation, infallibility would fail of 
its object if it were made dependent upon the character of the 
human agent through whom it is exercised. It would be an unbe- 
lievable hardship on Christian people if before they accepted a 
truth they were required to probe into the moral character of him 
who defined it. 

(2) There is no more reason why a wicked pope should not be 
infallible than there is for a wicked man not to be inspired. Now 
Caiaphas the High Priest who condemned Christ was a wicked 
man, yet God bestowed the gift of prophecy upon him. (See John 
vi:49-52; xviii:14.) Truly, therefore, there can be no vital objec- 
tion to the lesser gift of infallibility being likewise bestowed on 
unworthy agents. However, God has been good to His church in 
this respect, not trying the faith of Catholics too severely; for it 
so happens that no doctrine of the church has been defined by such 
popes as you have in mind. 

(3) By way of illustration, I might suggest to you that the 
decision of a court has the same value, in law and in fact, whether 
the presiding judge be a wicked man or not. 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) If the pope is not clothed with infallibility as he sits in 
supreme judgment and exercises absolute jurisdiction in matters 
which are not of faith or morals, yet demands obedience and sub- 
mission, it is very necessary that the personal character of the 
man be investigated and the world should know by what right he 
exercises his authority, from whom it is derived, and who are 
responsible in case he is guilty of malpractice in office; for it is 
evident if he is liable to err or to commit sin, he should receive 
that attention which is given to any other man in authority — or 
more. 

The spiritual and physical laws run parallel: to illustrate the 
"freedom" enjoyed by those dependent upon papal infallibility, 
in matters of faith and morals, let us revert to the slavery of the 
South prior to the Civil War : negroes were either sold or born into 
slavery; the master did all the "thinking," provided food and 
clothing, and had medical attention rendered when sickness over- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 139 

took them; slaves had no rights under the law, therefore had no 
thought or concern except in the matter of obedience to the com- 
mands of the master, and, to the slave, what the master decreed 
was LAW, and he recognized no other. Under those conditions, 
the owner had the right to "legislate, judge and punish," while 
the slave could not question the character nor authority of his 
master, neither could he take issue with him relative to any com- 
mand: these conditions prevailed until slavery was abolished: 
a Catholic cannot question the character of the pope nor his dog- 
mas, while his decrees must be faithfully and implicitly obeyed, 
as superseding any other law. This supreme power of the pope, 
exacting obedience in all things as it does, has drenched the 
world in blood century after century, and will continue to do so 
as long as papalism exists in the world. If Catholics and the 
world are ever emancipated from papalism, the forces bringing it 
about will have to be extraneous — it cannot come from within 
that "church." 

The presumptive right of the papacy to rule the world in all 
matters pertaining to life is based upon the blasphemous doctrine 
that the pope is Christ's Vice-Gerent — that is, God's "substitute" 
on earth — as Leo asserts, "We hold upon this earth the place of 
God Almighty." Now, if it be true that the pope holds the exalted 
position as God's superintendent of the world; if it be true that 
God has placed the management of this mundane sphere in the 
hands of an Italian in Italy, the world has the right to examine 
his credentials and expect this "superintendent" to be endowed, 
not only with infallibility as to faith and morals, but also the 
infallibility of God in his judgments, legislation and execution; 
to say the pope is without these attributes of God is to ques- 
tion, primarily, the pope's "credentials," as God could not 
place the world in the keeping of an "agent" without endowing 
him with all those attributes which He himself possessed — to con- 
tend that He did do so, places the Eternal Father in the impos- 
sible category of being Wise and Unwise, hence capable of being 
Good and Evil. The pope desires his credentials to be scrutinized 
— but they must be prepared by his agents and no questions are 
to be asked; if they are to be examined by the "faithful," only 
those documents are to be considered that the priesthood prepares 
per instructions from the pope. 

That the pope exercises authority, no one denies — it is either of 
God or of the devil. 

(2) The reference to Caiaphas proves nothing; the gift of 
prophecy was not restricted to the friends of God in every in- 
stance: we read of Balaam's ass making a statement, while the 
devils acknowledged the Christ; indeed, God makes the wrath of 
man to praise Him. The high priest was not the friend of God. 



140 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

The Father has been good to His church and people: He gave 
His Infallible Son to die to redeem man, and is the Captain of 
man's salvation and the Head of His Church, gave His Word to 
indicate the way, and His Spirit to illumine the minds of men. 
Christ said "follow Me." Can the human heart and conscience 
become so depraved as to believe the Christ would strike a plead- 
ing, upturned face? Could it be possible for the Great I Am to 
"persecute" His creatures, or "wage war" with them, for refus- 
ing to follow Christ? If God did this, it would be using force, 
destroying the principle of free moral agency and the plan of 
redemption, and make salvation depend upon the will of God 
only, rendering the crucifixion of Christ a farcical, senseless 
murder. 

What is the history of the popes and their church? If the pope 
is Christ veiled in the flesh, and the people are required to "follow" 
him (the pope) where and into what will he lead them? Compare 
the lives of the popes with the life of Christ and His Apostles: 
time was when the world ford to "follow" the pope — and he lead 
it into hell's midnight! 

As to any particular pope being in mind, that is not material; 
the decree of infallibility dissolved and eliminated individualities, 
creating the OFFICE of POPE, therefore it is not necessary to 
refer to any particular pope, or date of a decree or dogma : when 
we refer to the "pope" it is in the same sense as when we refer to 
God — one and the same, always; to deny this destroys the claim 
to infallibility and severs the papal institution from all kinship 
with God, while to admit it is to recognize that a "bad" pope 
"thought" good doctrine for the "faithful," which would be con- 
trary to the teaching of the Bible, which says that good and evil 
cannot come from the same source. 

(3)1 admit that the judge on the bench may be, and many have 
been, a wicked man; but there is no similarity between a judge 
on the bench and the pope : the judge does not claim infallibility, 
the pope does; the judge does not MAKE the LAWS which he 
administers, the pope does; the tenure of office of the judge de- 
pends upon his correct interpretation of the laws which the 
people make, and they decide whether or not his judgments are 
in accord with their will, while Catholics must accept the pope's 
laws, his interpretations, and obey his commands relative thereto. 
The people make their own laws and select the judge; if either 
proves unsatisfactory, they change them; in case the judge errs 
in judgment — if it is not in conformity with the law — it is set 
aside upon review and the judge removed, if it appears that his 
error was intentional; but since the decree of infallibility the 
pope cannot be removed from office, neither can he be impeached, 
nor his laws or judgments questioned or set aside by Catholics. 

Catholics are taught Infallibility applies to all the popes and 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 141 

councils — from the first to the last; yet there have been disagree- 
ments in matters of faith from the first, and the "defining" 
powers were at variance at different times. Pope Sixtus V even 
revised the Bible and it was suppressed at a later period! 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 17, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You not only in your paper fail to distinguish Papal 
Infallibility from Papal Supremacy, but you seem to confuse In- 
fallibility, Inspiration and Revelation. These also are distinct. 

(1) "Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence 
by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from 
liability to error, but is so guided that what he says or writes is 
truly the word of God, (so) that God Himself is the principal 
author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies 
exemption from liability to error." 

(2) "God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of 
an inspired, utterance ; the former remains a merely human utter- 
ance. Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by 
God, supernaturally, of some truth hitherto unknown; whereas 
infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective 
safeguarding of truths already revealed." 

(3) "It is well further to explain that infallibility ... is inde- 
pendent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive doc- 
trine may be based, and of the possible unworthy human motives 
that may appear to have influenced the result. It is the definitive 
result itself, and it alone, that is infallible." (Cath. Ency., Vol. 
VII, p. 790.) 

(4) The infallible prerogative of the pope is not by any means 
the fetter on the minds or the tax on the credulity of Catholics 
that you have imagined, must now be clear to you. 

Very trulv, 
JJF /MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) Analyze this paragraph defining Inspiration and Infalli- 
bility, and we have the same answer for both. "Inspiration," 
says the association, "preserves" the agent from error in speak- 
ing or writing, while Infallibility exempts from error, and instead 
of distinguishing Mr. Farrell has made the terms synonymous; 
in the first instance the pope is "preserved from liability to 
error," in the next he is "exempt from liability to error" : in one 
case he is preserved, in the other, exempt. From this, then, it 
appears that the pope is both inspired and infallible! 

(2) In the letter of October 15, the association quotes part of 
the Vatican Decree, in which it is declared that the pope has 
Divine assistance in defining doctrine, while the above letter de- 
clares, speaking of infallibility, that "it remains a merely human 
utterance . . . concerned with INTERPRETATION and EF- 
FECTIVE SAFEGUARDING of truth ALREADY revealed," 
which calls for the exercise of the pope's legislative and executive 
prerogatives! In the Vatican Council held in 1870, Pius IX 



142 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

defined the dogma of Infallibility, having "Divine assistance," 
but now Mr. Farrell cites the Encyclopedia to the effect that that 
"remains a merely human utterance" — or may be — yet no Cath- 
olic has the right to investigate whether or not it was the result 
of his human nature or the result of Divine assistance! 

(3) How can "the definitive result itself" be infallible, if it be 
true that what the pope says "remains a merely human utter- 
ance"? If it be "a merely human utterance," its origin is neither 
inspired, revealed or infallible! In the Universal Christian 
church, the Bible is accepted as the Inspired, Revealed and Infal- 
lible Word of God, under the protection of the Holy Spirit; to 
impute these attributes to the pope of that Italian institution is 
to declare the office of the Holy Spirit vacant and His duties 
turned over to the pope, yet the best writers of the system seem 
unable to "distinguish papal infallibility from papal supremacy," 
as is evident from the above conflict between the Vatican Council 
and the Catholic Encyclopedia ! 

(4) No, it is not clear to me; a mind that concurs in the doc- 
trines of a church depicted by these "clear" letters has reached 
that stage when nothing will be a tax on it. 

Christ promised to send the Spirit into the world to comfort 
His people, whose office would be to bring to their remembrance 
all He had commanded: outside of the "proof" furnished by the 
popes there is no evidenc to show that He has changed His mind 
and turned over to the pope the work of the Spirit; and, unless 
there has been such change of mind, the pope has no place in the 
Christian church, but heads a conspiracy against the human race, 
seeking to bury human intelligence under the decrees of that 
"church" which gave the world its intellectual bondage, slavery 
and midnight ! 

We cannot acknowledge as true the doctrine of papal infalli- 
bility without recognizing papal supremacy, thereby conceding 
the right of the pope to "think" for mankind in all matters that 
pertain to faith and morals without also conceding to the pope 
the right to legislate, and then inflict punishment for disobeying 
his decrees concerning things not pertaining to faith and morals ; 
Mr. Farrell says, though, that this doctrine does not fetter, but 
frees, the mind! I admit it frees the mind of all personal re- 
sponsibility, which is contrary to all Divine precepts, and antag- 
onistic to democratic ideals. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 22, 1917. 
. Dear Sir: You fall into the same error on No. 13 that was 
exposed under No. 5, so I refer you to my comment there. (1) 

(2) You make another mistake in citing the Syllabus of Errors 
(which, by the way, you misquote) to show what the teaching of 
the church is. That document is a syllabus of the different 
propositions condemned as erroneous in the several Encyclicals 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 143 

and Allocutions of Pius IX prior to 1864. In so far as it shows 
anything, therefore, it only shows what the teaching of the church 
is NOT. The truth cannot be derived from error. (*) 

(3) Moreover the Syllabus of Errors cannot be intelligently 
read, much less cited as authority, without having the Encyclical 
or Allocution referred to in each of the Syllabi. It is little more 
than an Index; nothing more than a digest, such as lawyers use 
to find cases in point, but which they would be laughed at for 
taking into court as authority without the case cited at hand. It 
was compiled by some obscure cleric at Rome and without even 
the signature of Pius, though by his secretary, sent out to bishops 
merely for their convenience in referring to the original docu- 
ments. 

(4) Paragraph 24, which you (mis) quote, refers to an allocu- 
tion treating of the rights of the church in connection with the 
States of the Church over which the pope has claimed temporal 
sovereignty since the eighth century, and it has no application to 
the church elsewhere. Very truly, 

JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) The long letters Mr. Farrell (?) devotes to "Infallibility" 
and "Baptism" are very noticeable considering the fact that they 
are subjects which came up incidentally in my questions and 
criticisms, while he eases away from No. 13 like one who has 
suddenly come face to face with a bear while out fishing. Ques- 
tion 13 reads: 

"Does the Roman Catholic church, impliedly or otherwise, teach 
(1) that the church has the right to employ force, (2) that non- 
Catholics ought to be harmed either in business or in person, (3) 
that the church has the right to remove heretics from the earth 
by death?" 

Both in the press and through the mails the Catholic church in 
Georgia informed the people that if they desired to have a first- 
hand knowledge of what Catholics believe, their rights, faith and 
practices, etc., it could be secured from the Catholic Laymen's 
Association of Georgia, Mr. J. J. Farrell, Manager, Augusta, Ga. 

To clause No. 1 of the question, "Does the Roman Catholic 
church, impliedly or otherwise, teach (1) that the church has the 
right to employ force"? Mr. Farrell answered "NO" in his origi- 
nal answer; in the present letter he attempts to divert attention 
from the question and center it upon another issue not germain 
to the fact sought to be proved. 

That his answer to clause No. 1 is untrue is proved by the 
decree of the Council of Trent, Sess. vii, Can. 14, which reads : 

"If any one says that the BAPTIZED are not to be compelled 
to a Christian life by any other penalty save that they be ex- 
cluded from the participation of the Eucharist and of the other 



144 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

sacraments until they repent, let him be anathema." (Let him be 
ACCURSED.) 

Every Catholic in the world is bound in conscience to obey the 
decrees of this Conucil, and Farrell is now under the curse of his 
church, unless he answered with intent to deceive — which is per- 
mitted by said church ! 

The Constitution of Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidel, according 
to Taunton, "claims the co&rvice power of exterior judgment and 
of inflicting healthful penalties." He also incorporates in the 
Canon Law one of the propositions condemned as false by Pius 
IX, the authenticity of which Mr. Farrell denies ; it reads : 

"Syllabus n. 24. Pius IX, in the Encyclical Quanta Cura, 1864, 
condemned the doctrine that the church had no right to coerce 
with penalties the violation of her laws; and he also condemned 
the proposition that the church had no power of inflicting punish- 
ment nor any temporal power direct or indirect." 

These citations are sufficient affirmations to all three questions 
embodied in No. 13, but I will cite authority to show the teaching 
of the church relative to each, to expose the deceitfulness of those 
in authority when dealing with Protestants. 

"Does the Roman Catholic church, impliedly or otherwise, teach 
(2) that non-Catholics ought to be harmed either in business or 
in person?" 

To this, Mr. Farrell also said "NO." From the Corpus Juris, 
the official code of papal laws, we read: 

"If any one presumes to keep heretics in their house or lands, 
or to carry on business with them, he is to be excommunicated." 
Decret. Greg. lib. V. Tit. VII. c-8. 

The Lateran Council legislated, under Pope Innocent III : 

"Let secular rulers be warned, and if necessary compelled by 
ecclesiastical censures, to take a public oath to do all in their 
power to exterminate from their territory all manner of heretics." 

In 1252 Pope Innocent IV issued a bull requiring Italy to in- 
corporate in her Imperial laws the mandate to enforce all penal- 
ties against heretics; he also issued another in 1254, Ad Extir- 
panda, which was likewise endorsed and promulgated by many 
of his successors — Clement IV, Nicholas IV, Alexander IV — to 
exterminate heretics; in 1265 Pope Urban IV made it UNIVER- 
SALLY unlawful for any civil authority to impede the work of 
the "holy" Inquisition against heretics under pain of excommuni- 
cation, which is, to-day, incorporated in the fundamental law of 
the papal church. 

We see what the law was, and how it was applied in the Dark 
and Middle Ages;- now let us examine the utterances of a pope 
who died in OUR day — 1903 — and note if there has been any 
change in the law or spirit of popery since then. Turning to the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 145 

Encyclical of Leo XIII, Libertas Proestatissimum, June 20, 1888, 
we hear him declaring that "to allow people to go unharmed who 
violate or destroy it" — that is, truth as taught by popery — "would 
be most impious, most foolish, and most inhuman." All Protes- 
tants, Masons and other secret order men come under this con- 
demnation, and it would be an act of piety on the part of the 
"faithful" to extirpate them ; in doing so they would display great ' 
wisdom, and be very humane! Farrell answered "NO" to this 
question — Leo, for Farrell's church, replied "YES." 

"Does the Roman Catholic church, impliedly or otherwise, teach 
(3) that the church has the right to remove heretics from the 
earth by death?" 

"NO" was Farrell's answer to this question, so we will have to 
investigate the subject. Taunton's Canon Law says: "A society 
which is perfect must possess coercive power for attaining the 
end for which the society itself exists," which is a "necessary 
corollary of the public power of lawgiving, judging and of execut- 
ing the penalties decreed upon transgressors." (All Protestants 
are "transgressors.") This law is based upon many decrees of 
the church, all of which are epitomized by St. Thomas Aquinas, 
Summa, 2a, 2dae, qst. XI, art. 3, 4, in which he teaches that the 
church has the right to remove heretics from the earth by death. 

Mark you! Mr. Farrell is here answering officially for the 
Catholic church in Georgia; he replies "NO" to the three ques- 
tions under No. 13. His blatant denials indicate official Catholi- 
cism's regard for truth when dealing with heretics, and show 
that he knows the papal church is a dangerous, murderous society 
that is waiting, panther-like, for the time when it may spring 
upon its prey, who may have been lulled to sleep by the Siren 
voice of papists and pro-papists or secret Romanists in Protes- 
tant pulpits, some of whom are "D. D.'s." That this official asso- 
ciation has an ulterior motive in rendering these untruthful an- 
swers, denying the dogmas of baptism and intention, is apparent, 
and stamps that institution as being wholly unworthy of the 
confidence and "trust" of mankind, especially in America; this 
question, No. 13, and several others that will develop, should be 
carried to the Congress of these United States, and the papal 
church be made to show cause why it should not be "proscribed" 
by freemen to safeguard the peace and safety of the nation. 

Farrell says I "fall into the same error on No. 13 that was ex- 
posed under No. 5," and refers me to his comment there. Turn 
to his letter of November 2, 1917: there he denies that Catholics 
are taught to obey the voice of the pope as being the voice of God, 
which has no connection at all with Question 13, except inferen- 
tially: that "Where 'NO' answers a question, it answers true, 
unless squarely the opposite, in exact terms of the question, can 



146 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

be shown. This rule of right reason can in no case be ignored 
without a sacrifice of truth." 

That "NO" does not answer No. 13 true, but that "squarely the 
opposite, in exact terms of the question," is the truth, has been 
shown. His interpretation of the "rules of right reason" and his 
opinion of what is "truth" may coincide with the training re- 
ceived in parochial schools, but from the American viewpoint he 
has answered with "a sacrifice of truth" and an intent to deceive; 
his answer comports well with the teaching that one must believe 
white to be black, if a superior so defines it, and accords with that 
"right reason" which requires a denial of physical evidences and 
the natural senses even when confronted by demonstrable facts. 
To those so trained, Farrell's "NO" is the truth, and closes the 
proposition, it is no longer a subject for investigation! 

It has been demonstrated above that papalism is a menace to 
society, which seeks to destroy Truth from the face of the earth. 
Where truth dies, faith among men becomes extinct, and barbar- 
ism follows ; therefore any agency in the world that in any man- 
ner destroys truth is a menace to the race. "Keep no faith with 
heretics" decreed the Council of Constance. The system that 
inculcates this principle among its adherents toward outsiders 
will find the "faithful" applying it among themselves, which will 
reach as far as the system extends among men — and it spreads 
best where opposition has been destroyed: and opposition has 
been destroyed wherever any American citizen betrays his country 
and civilization by remaining silent or indifferent to the question. 

Is it possible for the Church of Christ to inculcate or practice 
deceit? Could a merely benevolent society teach deceit, treachery, 
and evince a desire to use "force," do "harm" or "murder" those 
who will not subscribe to its "dogmas"? No; a thousand times 
no ! The Italian institution not only teaches that it is benevolent, 
but the "only" true Christian church, and uses these means to 
"convert" the world! 

The devil, "the father of lies," put murder in the heart of Cain; 
he instills murder and deceit in the hearts of all over whom he 
rules, whether man or a system. 

The citations from Leo XIII under this question were promul- 
gated in the exercise of his prerogative as Supreme Judge, Legis- 
lator and Executive, so recognized by Farrell in citing the Vati- 
can Decree of Infallibility; therefore the association could not 
discuss the question, so tried to smother it under a maze of irrele- 
vant verbiage. Leo reigned twenty-five years; from a thorough 
knowledge of the papacy, he was conversant with all rights of the 
pope thereto appertaining, and knew what its laws gave him a 
right to exact from the "faithful." He also had at his command the 
great Vatican Archives from which he could secure information 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 147 

concerning the "rights" of the church with which he may not have 
been familiar. Every utterance of this pope, therefore, was based 
upon his conception of his duty to his church, in the "effective 
safeguarding of truths already revealed" by his predecessors., 
among which was the Bull Unam Sanctam by the infamous pope, 
Boniface VIII — the fellow who frightened poor old Celestine V 
into resigning. Boniface caused a rupture with many of the 
sovereigns of Europe soon after he became pope, issuing orders 
and conveying threats to them. Philip the Handsome, King of 
France, resented the efforts of Boniface to intimidate him 
through the papal legate, so he dismissed the pope's representa- 
tive from his court ; this so enraged him that he issued the famous 
Bull, Unam Sanctam, declaring himself to be absolute soverign 
of the kingdom of France with the power of dispensing secular 
as well as ecclesiastical benefices. In this Bull the pope sets out 
fully the prerogatives of the papacy accruing under the Decree 
of Papal Supremacy, which had been enjoyed from the seventh to 
the thirteenth century — which supremacy, by the way, was se- 
cured by what the Jesuit fathers now acknowledge to have been 
foregries, known as the "Isidorian False Decretals"; in this de- 
cree, Boniface said: 

"Outside of her (the Catholic church) there is no salvation nor 
remission of sins. . . . That in her and within her power are two 
swords, namely, the spiritual and the temporal sword. . . . Both 
are in the power of the church, namely, the spiritual sword and 
the temporal sword; the latter to be used for the church, the 
former by the hand of the priest, the latter by the hand of the 
princes and kings* (the government) , but at the nod and suffer- 
ance of the priest. The one sword must of necessity be subject to 
the other, and the temporal authority to the spiritual. . . . For 
truth being the witness, the spiritual power has the functions 
of establishing the temporal power and sitting in judgment upon 
it . . . but if the supreme* power deviate, it can be judged by on 
mam. , . . 

"Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the 
Roman Pontiff." Schaff, Hist, of the Christian Church, Vol. V, 
Part II, p. 25. 

This is a doctrine that seeks to change our Constitution, yet I 
have not learned of any Catholics resisting it, as Farrell said they 
would do! (See his answer to Question 9.) 

In 1864 Pope Pius IX issued his "Syllabus of Errors," the 
twenty-third proposition of which teaches that it is an error to 
say that "The Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have 

* This doctrine is now taught in papal parochial schools : in the thirty- 
second edition of the "Manual of Christian Doctrine," the volume in hand 
being that of 1919, the question is asked : "120. Has the church the right 
and duty to proscribe schism or heresy?" and the answer is : "Yes, it has both 
the right and the duty to do so." 



148 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

exceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights of 
princes, and have ever committed errors in defining matters of 
faith and morals." 

(2) Language is employed by honest-minded people as a means 
of transmitting thought; but it appears Jesuitism has reduced the 
science to the art of ambiguity — concealing and confusing instead 
of revealing: this is very marked in the Syllabus of Errors; for 
example, an honest person, in declaring a fact, would say, "The 
female is the mother of its species," while the pope would teach, 
under a general caption of "Popular Errors": "The male is the 
mother of its species"; of course, in order to understand what he 
presumes to teach, it is necessary to know something about the 
subject, and reverse the statement, and thus "(mis) quote" him, 
by saying he teaches that it is error to say, "The male is the 
mother of its species," or (mis) quote (?) him by saying he 
teaches that it is error to say, "The female is the mother of its 
species." This in answer to Farrell's charge that I misquoted the 
Syllabus of Errors. In this connection, it would be just as logical 
for Farrell to say Aquinas did not say the papal church ought to 
MURDER heretics; of course not: he merely said they should be 
"removed" from the earth by "death" ! 

(3) In the Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, he says: "To 
wish the church to be subject to the civil power in the exercise of 
her duty is a great folly and a sheer injustice. . . . Pope Pius 
branded publicly many false opinions which were gaining ground, 
and afterwards ordered them to be condensed in summary form in 
order that in this sea of error Catholics might have a light which 
they might safely follow. It will suffice to indicate a few of them : 
Prop, xxxix. The State, as the origin and source of all rights 
enjoys a right that is unlimited. Prop. lv. The Church must be 
separated from the State and the State from the Church," pp. 
124-6. He cites only four of the eighty Propositions by Pius — 
which is also the doctrine now being taught Catholics from the 
"Manual of Christian Doctrine." Leo not only approves of this 
doctrine to be true Catholicism, but he runs Farrell into a 
"corner," by asserting that Pius IX "ORDERED" them condensed 
in summary form for CATHOLICS, not "bishops"; Farrell said 
that they were compiled by some "obscure cleric . . and sent out 
to bishops" to be used by them as an index to the original docu- 
ments! ("Keep no faith with heretics" is a wonderful help in 
times of papal stress!) In this matter, it is evident that Pope 
Leo XIII deliberately uttered a falsehood, or that Farrell, repre- 
senting the Catholic church in Georgia, positively prevaricated 
in an effort to save the truth from being known, and to conceal 
what the Italian church teaches its "children" is their duty to the 
pope, camouflaged under "faith and morals"! Of the two — Leo 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 149 

and Farrell — which one is more likely to be the prevaricator, 
he who taught the "faithful," or the man who attempts to teach 
a "heretic"? I leave the answer to the reader! 

(4) The Bull, Unam Sanctam, is the foundation of Proposition 
24 of the Syllabus of Errors; of coarse, Pius may have delivered 
an Allocution or written an Encyclical on the subject, but by 
decree Boniface established the 'principle, making it LAW. The 
Propositions cannot be restricted in their application to the few 
Italian States over which the pope ruled as king and god — States 
that were won in wars, by forgeries, or presented to the papacy 
against the will and consent of the people therein — they refer to 
the State, the Civil Governmnt, as a world-wide proposition; for 
it is evident that, if the pope "holds upon this earth the place of 
God Almighty," the scope, force and power of his decrees and 
teaching extend as far among mankind as the will of God — and 
I do not believe even Farrell would say God is cognizant of, or 
restricted by, "state" lines as Supreme Ruler of the Universe. 

Although Taunton's Canon Law is the condensed teaching from 
several hundred volumes by former canonists treating of every 
phase of Canon Law, embodying Proposition 24 as a general, 
universal principle, Farrell says it applies only to the several 
States of Italy! 

(*) Here, Farrell says "The truth cannot be derived from 
error." I ask, in all candor, CAN TRUTH BE FOUNDED 
UPON ERROR? The False Decretals, establishing Papal Su- 
premacy, made their appearance in the eighth century ; upon this 
falsehood the great superstructure of Papal Supremacy and In- 
fallibility were established. Truth cannot be derived from error, 
neither can it be founded upon error — and if error be removed 
from the foundation of the papal church, it would crumble and 
fade away ! The following demonstrates upon what great ERROR 
the papal church is founded, cited from the Law of the Church 
by Taunton, S. J., London, 1906, pp. 340-1: 

"1. The false decretails are a spurious collection of decretails 
attributed to the popes and councils of the first three centuries 
. . . Date (of appearance) from 845-853. . . . 

"4. The object of the collection seems to be to protect the 
episcopate from the tyranny of the metropolitans. . . . 

"6. The collection was universally received; and it was not 
until the fifteenth century that doubts began to be cast upon the 
authenticity . . . the Ballerini brothers have established their 
non-authenticity. 

"7. One point is abundantly clear: the collection was not origi- 
nated by the popes, but by a Gallican cleric. ... If the popes 
made use of the collection they did so for two reasons : 

"(1) The collection was generally received, and no hint was 
made that it was not what it claimed to be, 



150 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

"(2) It simply asserted what for centuries had been the 
acknowledged right and constant practice of the Holy See. 

"It is no argument against the truth of rights to allow that 
origins for these rights were . . assigned, by an unknown writer, 
carelessly or uncritically to sources which more perfect knowl- 
edge shows to be false." 

This is pure Jesuit casuistry, from which arises the charge 
against the order and the church it serves that "the end justifies 
the means." 

From this we discover the popes claiming and enjoying the 
fruits of ERROR and FALSEHOOD from the third to twen- 
tieth centuries — fruits accruing from forged documents which 
gave them the supremacy "Who opposeth and exalteth him- 
self above all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he 
as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is 
God . . . whose coming is after the working of satan with all 
power and signs and lying wonders, and all deceivableness of 
unrighteousness" 2 Thes. c. 2. 

Will God use deceit and falsehood to establish or promote His 
Truth? Yes, provided it is true that the pope is holding the place 
of God Almighty on earth; otherwise, no. If God hates a lie and 
liars, surely, surely, He would not permit His substitute on earth 
to live and practice a lie in His behalf SEVENTEEN HUNDRED 
YEARS ! It is sublimely ridiculous and absurd to say God makes 
the pope "infallible" when he is defining some dogma for the 
"faithful" but participates in and sanctions the fraudulent pre- 
sumption of the pope in his enjoyment of a supremacy established 
on a LIE, which calls for two pertinent observations: first, this 
would be "class" legislation in that one rule of conduct in all 
things would be made for the "faithful" and another for the 
"head" of the church; second, creates the impossible, by implying 
pure water flows from an impure source. 

To say the Christian religion was even remotely benefited by 
a principle of the devil — deceitfulness — puts either God or the 
pope in an unenviable predicament before INTELLIGENCE. 

The title of pope, or Universal Bishop, was conferred on Boni- 
face III by murderer Phocas ; the pope's absolute dictatorship in 
and over the whole church — which includes all Protestant sects — 
was secured by forgery ; his supremacy in temporal affairs of the 
governments of the earth was proclaimed in the Bull Unam 
Sanctam, all forever sealed as "truth" to the church by the Vati- 
can Decree of Supremacy and Infallibility in 1870, obedience to 
which Catholics are bound hard and fast, and will so remain as 
long as they are members of the pope's church. 

Solomon said that there were seven things God hates, which are 
an abomination unto Him: 1, a proud look; 2, lying tongue; 3, 
hands that shed innocent blood; 4, a heart that devises wicked 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 151 

imaginations; 5, feet swift in running to mischief; 6, a false wit- 
ness that speaketh lies; 7, he that soweth discord. Prov. vi: 16-19. 

I defy anyone called Catholic to say these seven "things" do not 
apply to the dogmas and decrees of the pope's church — and they 
would make good texts for some so-called Protestant ministers 
to prach from! 

The Syllabus of Errors will receive further consideration as 
we go along. 

I believe I have established the fact that Mr. Farrell has made 
false answers to Question 13, which, being from an association 
officially answering for the Catholic church, indicates to what 
extent we may "trust" Catholicism! 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 23, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Regarding the "Intention" of infallibility. 

You have no doubt concluded before now that if there were any 
such intention as you imagine hidden in the doctrine of infalli- 
bility, to limit its exercise so narrowly is rather a contrary way 
of carrying out its object. 

You may say it makes no difference whether the pope teaches 
by virtue of his supreme authority, since Catholics submit to the 
pope whether infallible or not. But it makes a great difference, 
just as great as the rational meaning in the terms, intellectual 
liberty, freedom of the soul, and such like. 

(1) If Catholics do not fully and unreservedly give, not only 
external obedience, but internal assent, to doctrines denned by 
virtue of the pope's infallible prerogative, they cease to be Cath- 
olics ipso facto, instanter. They are not required on the other 
hand to give internal assent but only external respect to teach- 
ings not so defined, and these latter constitute the great bulk of 
Catholic theology, philosophy, history, tradition, law and prac- 
tices. 

To illustrate: A Catholic need not agree that the Syllabus of 
Errors, the Rules of the Index, the strictures drawn by Leo XIII 
against Freemasonry and similar matters are unerringly correct. 
The church does not propose these things to the belief of her chil- 
dren as absolutely final, conclusive and irrevocable forever. 

(2) Whatever prohibition or commandment is contained in 
these and like pronouncements of the popes or of the Sacred Con- 
gregation are to be respected and observed even though we do 
not give internal assent to them, so long as they are in force, 
unless, of course, conscience forbids. 

For above all things Catholics know that a right ordered con- 
science is King of the Soul, and between these two, no man, in 
whatsoever matter, were he ten times supreme, can set a voice of 
authority. Verv truly, 

JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

There are but two opposing forces in the world : call them Good 
and Evil, Light and Darkness, or Christ and the Devil, if you 



152 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

will, and they are making war upon each other with the "inten- 
tion" of subduing the world in the name of their respective 
Principals, therefore every act and wish of each is exerted to 
obtain that goal. Christ seeks to win the world by Love and 
Truth; the devil, by hate and lies. Before it was paganized in 
606, the Roman church was doing the will of God, but after the 
pope was elevated to the throne and God deposed, I cannot believe 
Christ has any connection with the pope or his system. The 
Roman church has employed every means that the human intelli- 
gence and the devil could devise to bring the world to its knees 
before an Italian man-god. It matters not how erroneous I may 
consider the Catholic religion from a theological standpoint, I 
would not deprive Catholics of the right to its enjoyment, if it 
affords them any satisfaction; but by its very nature the system 
requires its devotees to exert themselves with the end in view 
of ultimately forcing all "baptized" persons under papal domi- 
nation, providing for the employment of fire and sword in the 
process if it be necessary, and every Catholic must endeavor to 
inject the virus of Romanism into all the veins of the State — 
politics and education; and from the consideration of the condi- 
tions of nations which have had this "sap" of Catholicism in their 
veins, being interested in the welfare of my country, I most em- 
phatically protest against any such procedure. There is no 
middle-ground with popery: you must be either Catholic or 
heathen; this is proved by the history of the church, which shows 
that it has always tried to exterminate the Christians, but does 
not make war on the heathen; consider the fearful oath of the 
Catholic Bishop — it "is directed against Christians only. In this 
we see the scheme followed by the devil: he directs his attacks 
against the Christians; those on the outside give him no uneasi- 
ness, hence are not the object of his hatred. 

In the above letter, the association again discusses the "infalli- 
bility" of the pope, instead of the laws of the church which give 
that institution the right to apply force, harm, and kill those who 
reject papal blasphemy. He admits (par. 1) that to be a "good" 
Catholic they must mentally assent to doctrines, but in other 
matters they MUST give "external respect to the teachings" not 
defined as infallible or proposed to belief, and that whatever 
prohibition or command is contained in this (theology, philoso- 
phy, history, traditions, laws, decrees, practices) "are to be re- 
spected and obeyed, so long as they are in force." This is the 
only material admission he has made as a "witness on the stand"; 
I have been seeking to get him to state what effect the DIREC- 
TIVE PREROGATIVE of the pope has on Catholics, as this is 
the power he possesses that pertains to matters not of faith and 
morals, but which vitally concern all non-Catholics; it is this 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 153 

"external" or physical aspect of popery that constitutes the 
menace to all countries not Catholic; we care not a straw for 
their "internal" attitude toward papal "dogmas"— they may be- 
lieve all that the popes have ever proposed as a matter for belief — 
but if their "external respect" to the decrees of the pope makes 
them strive to interfere with the rights of other citizens: makes 
them go to the polls as Catholics instead of American citizens, 
makes them labor to destroy the Constitution so that the laws of 
an Italian monarch, claiming to be God's substitute upon the 
earth, can be put in force, the church of Rome stands branded as 
a menace to a free people, biding the time when it can force all 
the baptized to give "EXTERNAL RESPECT," if not "internal 
assent," to papal decrees! 

Regarding the reference to conscience : I fail to see where con- 
science can find a lodgment in the papal mind, after reading the 
above letter. Conscience may be defined as that principle within 
us by which we distinguish between right and wrong: the only 
time I discover where a Catholic can display conscience is in his 
decision to adhere to the papal religion without giving any 
thought what it may require of him ; being born into the system, 
his conscience was pre-determined ; in after years, he confirms 
this accident of birth. To illustrate the principle : A person born 
in Germany of German parents, is by that very fact a subject of 
the Kaiser ; when he becomes of mature age, and elects to remain 
in Germany, he thus confirms his citizenship; if a person leaves 
the land of his nativity and goes to Germany, assuming an oath 
of allegiance to the Kaiser, he is also a German citizen. We are 
all more or less familiar with the terrible deeds committed by 
German soldiers during the Great War: the German by birth or 
selection may not have given "internal assent" to the fiendish- 
ness that the Kaiser and Prussian Militarism demanded of him, 
but as long as he was bound by his allegiance to give "external 
respect" to any prohibition or command of the Kaiser, he was 
German, and while the horrible crimes he and his fellow soldiers 
committed — killing defenseless women and children and non- 
combatants — may have been repugnant to his mind, yet con- 
science played no part in the premises; his superiors had deter- 
mined what he must do, now he must obey; the question of con- 
science was settled when he decided to remain a citizen of the 
German Empire: so, when he thrust his bayonet through the 
wasted body of a little French maid, the emaciated mother, or 
palsied grandfather, the effect upon the victim was the same — it 
mattered not in that case whether he gave "internal assent" to 
the deed or acted out of "external respect" to (German) "philoso- 
phy, history, tradition, law and practices." 

History's pages are stained with the records of the many mil- 



154 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

lions of non-Catholics slain by the Catholic church— and it makes 
no difference whether those murders were committed with an 
"internal assent" of the mind, or out of "external respect" to the 
will of the pope! 

When conscience becomes seared as with a hot iron, no beast 
of the field can be more ferocious. 

Farrell acknowledged that Catholics are bound to give "exter- 
nal respect" and obedience to papal regulatory decrees, which is 
the doctrine of the Vatican Council demanding Obedience — and 
I consider it quite an achievement in securing it from — a Jesuit? 

Bishops are creatures of the pope, priests hold under bishops, 
while the laity are under them all. When a bishop is "conse- 
crated," he swears to "be faithful and obedient to . . . the Holy 
Roman Church, and to our Lord the Pope. ... I will help them 
to defend and keep the Roman Papacy . . . against all men. . ." 
(This makes no provision for restricting papalism to the Italian 
States, as Farrell contended in one instance!) "The rights, 
honors, privileges and authority of the Roman church, of our 
Lord the pope, I will endeavor to preserve, defend, increase and 
advance. . . . The rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolic de- 
crees, provisions and mandates, I will observe with all my might 
and cause them to be observed by others. Heretics, schismatics, 
and rebels to our said Lord or his aforesaid successors I will to 
my utmost power persecute and wage war with." 

We turn now to the oath required of those who join the papal 
church, as contained in Gibbon's Manual of Prayers: 

"I, , . . . believe the holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman 

to be the only and true church established on earth by Jesus 
Christ, to which I submit myself with my whole heart. I believe 
ALL the articles she proposes to my belief, and I reject and con- 
demn all that she rejects and condemns, and I am READY TO 
OBSERVE ALL THAT SHE COMMANDS ME. And especially 
I profess to believe: . . . 

"The primacy, not only of honor, but also of jurisdiction, of 
the Roman Pontiff, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, 
Vicar of Jesus Christ; 

"Veneration of the saints and their images" (The Catholic 
bible being mutilated by the popes, Catholics do not know this is 
forbidden; that they violate God's commandment every time they 
bow down before an image, or a priest) . 

"The authority of the Apostolic and Ecclesiastical Traditions, 
and of the Holy Scriptures which we must interpret and under- 
stand only in the sense which our holy mother the Catholic church 
has held and does hold": (Fettering intellect and free inquiry; 
"two and two equals four" — we do not know how, but it's so — 
the teacher said so!) 

"And everything else that has been defined and declared by the 
Sacred Canons and by the General Councils, and particularly by 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 155 

the Holy Council of Trent, and delivered, defined and declared by 
the General Council of the Vatican, especially concerning the 
Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and his infallible teaching au- 
thority. 

"With a sincere heart, therefore, and with unfeigned faith, I 
detest and abjure every error, heresy and SECT opposed to the 
said Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Roman church. So help me 
God, and these Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands." 

Analyze that oath, Americans ! It is in perfect accord with the 
oath of the bishop, and all are in harmony with the "intention" 
of the church of Rome "to govern the minds of men." 

On page 458 of the Encyclical Letters, Leo XIII says, "We 
hold the place of Him who came to save that which was lost." 
Again he says, on page 330, "We hold upon this earth the place 
of God Almighty," and on 183, he defined the relation each one 
sustains to the papacy: "But the man who has embraced the 
Catholic faith, as in duty bound, is by that very fact a subject of 
the church as one of the children born of her . . . which it is the 
special charge of the Roman Pontiff to rule with SUPREME 
POWER." 

What chance is there in the above doctrine for the exercise of 
conscience? Leo says, and he is confirmed by the layman's oath, 
that "What we are obliged to do" or must not do, is laid down by 
the Roman Pontiff, and in swearing to uphold the Vatican and 
Council of Trent Decrees, papal subjects agree to give "external 
respect" to all the pope commands, which completely eliminates 
conscience from the individual. 

The "intention" of popery is shown in what it has determined to 
accomplish; Leo says the church is to "control the minds of men 
. . . a task she is wholly bent upon accomplishing." (The Index 
is therefore indispensable.) The intelligence of the human race 
to be subjugated to an Italian foreigner — and all subjects of that 
system are a party to this "intention": "Him to whom ye yield 
yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are." 

As long as a man elects to fight under the German flag or fol- 
low it, he is the enemy of every man enlisted under opposing 
banners, likewise when a Catholic layman swears to "detest . . . 
every sect" opposing popery, he need not affirm or deny his belief; 
because serving under the papal standard fixes his position among 
free peoples, and it is sufficient to know what his church teaches. 
Papal law being in conflict with the rights of the people of this 
country, those who are subject thereto being aliens, should be 
denied the rights of citizenship. No adherent of or believer in 
the laws of the Italian church should be permitted to have the 
training of our youth in their hands — they should have no place 
in connection with the public school system, neither are such 
qualified to take part in politics or serve on juries : politics being 



156 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the science of government, Catholics must "play the game" in 
favor of the papal government, which is destructive of democ- 
racy, therefore they should receive only the rights accorded sub- 
jects of any other foreign ruler, because as citizens, it is their 
duty to carry out the will of their pope, to put his laws in opera- 
tion in this land, which renders them a discordant factor in the 
body-politic seeking the destruction of the priceless heritages of 
freemen, namely, civil liberty, free speech, free press, and liberty 
of conscience. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 25, 1917. 
Dear Sir: Your Question 3 is next in order; but it occurs to 
me that since you say my answer to 22 is cause for "impeach- 
ment," I ought to set you right on that at once and not stand on 
the other. It may help us along generally. 

(2) You take it altogether too seriously that you got different 
answers from different persons to different questions put, wasn't 
that what you wished to get? In court, when it is sought to im- 
peach one witness by another, exactly the same question must be 
propounded to all. Instead of my being impeached then by the 
different answers you got, if we were in court, you would be 
stultified by the different questions you put. Ask any lawyer. 

(3) When a certain lawyer, long ago, with the intention of 
confounding Him, stood up in the crowd and asked Jesus Christ 
what he must do to be saved, he was told to love the Lord God 
with all his heart and his neighbor as himself. When Nicodemus 
went to Jesus in the night, seeking the words of eternal life, he 
was told that unless he was born again, of water and of the 
Spirit, he could not enter Heaven. 

(4) Your question to me smacked of the intention of the law- 
yer; the one you sent to Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Keiley and 
Sunday Visitor seemed to ask light for a troubled soul, as did 
Nicodemus. I gave you the answer that Christ gave the lawyer; 
the others gave you the information you appeared to seek, the 
same that Christ gave to Nicodemus. 

(5) Your question to me was not about salvation; you were not 
concerned about that. Your intention was to show that Catholic 
teaching in regard to Baptism is unreasonable, hard and narrow. 
Sensing your purpose, I answered in a way that would open a 
little, for a sincere mind, the flood-gates of that inimitable love 
for souls that the Church of the Savior of mankind must have in 
order to be His Bride. 

We shall see next if I answered true. 
Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) Any person intelligent enough to read Question 22 will 
recognize that it was one seeking information as to the doctrine 
of "Intention" that was decreed by the Council of Trent, while 
the Catholic association replies with a dissertation on baptism! 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 157 

(2) Speaking in his official capacity for the Catholic church, 
Mr. Farrell denied the dogma of baptism as well as that of 
"Intention," in his original answer. Upon discovering his supe- 
riors had reversed his answer relative to baptism, he makes an 
effort to confuse the subjects of intention and baptism, no doubt 
hoping to escape the main question by injecting other issues, 
although the wording of No. 22 is an admission, on my part, that 
I understood the subject of baptism, which precluded legitimate 
discussion of any other issue except secondarily. 

Mr. Farrell says that, in court, to impeach one witness by an- 
other, exactly the same question must be put to all. Not neces- 
sarily, especially where a witness seems to parry. If, for any 
reason, a witness will not answer a direct question as to fact, it is 
legitimate to present hypothetical questions, and the answer to 
the one would establish the truth of the other. He charges that 
I put different questions to different parties, consequently got 
different answers. I asked HIM about INTENTION: to deny 
that dogma, he had to deny the corelated dogma of baptism; so, 
to show his unreliability as a witness on the stand, in the matter 
of baptism, I wrote letters to his superiors — the highest authority 
in the church of Rome in America, as follows: 

Macon, Ga., March 25, 1917. 
Rev. J. Cardinal Gibbons, 
Baltimore, Md. 
Dear Cardinal: I am desirous of obtaining the following in- 
formation, and address you as being the highest authority to 
whom I could refer, as follows: 

Is Baptism essential to salvation and membership in the Cath- 
olic church? 

Thanking you for your attention, 

Very truly, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

Cardinal's Residence, 
408 N. Charles St. 
Baltimore. 

May 28, 1917. 
Dear Doctor: His Eminence, Cardinal Gibbons, instructs me 
to say that Baptism is essential to salvation, according to the 
teaching of our Savior, hence it is necessary for membership in 
the Catholic church. 

He refers you to his book, "The Faith of Our Fathers," which 
has an article of some length on the subject. 
Faithfully yours, 

E. J. Connelly, 
C. A. Yarbrough, D. D. S., Asst. Chancellor. 

Macon, Ga. 



158 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Macon, Ga., March 25, 1917. 
Editor Our Sunday Visitor, 
Huntington, Indiana. 
Dear Sir: Will you kindly state whether or not Baptism is 
essential to salvation and membership in the Catholic church? 
Thanking you for your attention, 

Very truly, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 
(Note. — A self -addressed envelope, stamped, was enclosed in 
these letters. The answer to the above came back in the envelope 
furnished, written on the bottom of the letter sent the Editor) : 
"Yes. We hold that Heaven is a supernatural reward; that, 
therefore, the soul must be elevated to a supernatural degree, and 
that Baptism effects this. John iii:5 is our authority. Baptism 
is called a re-birth, viz., to the supernatural life, and the word 
translated here, 'a man,' is DIS in Greek, which means anyone." 

Macon, Ga., March 25, 1917. 
Rt. Rev. Benj. J. Keiley, 
Savannah, Ga. 
Dear Bishop Keiley : I would thank you to give me the follow- 
ing information: 

Is Baptism essential to salvation and membership in the Cath- 
olic church? 

Thanking you for your attention and for the information, 

Very truly, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

Bishop's House, 
222 E. Harris St. 
Savannah, Ga., June 11, 1917. 
Dr. C. A. Yarbrough, D. D. S., 

Dear Sir : On my return after an absence of ten days, I found 
your letter of May 25th. 

You ask me: Is Baptism necessary to salvation and member- 
ship in the Catholic church? 

The Form of Baptism, that is to say, by immersion or pouring, 
as practiced in different religious bodies, is not essential ; but the 
reception of the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. 
Obviously the second question is answered in the reply to the first. 

Most sincerely, 

f Benj. J. Keiley, 
Bishop of Savannah. 

Mr. Farrell says I would be "stultified by the different ques- 
tions" I put; but, did I put different questions? I asked him for 
information concerning "Intention," which doctrine he denied; 
having at the same time denied the doctrine of baptism in connec- 
tion, I laid this question before his superiors, to show by tangible 
evidence that he was not truthful as a witness, and this fact their 
answers established. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 159 

(3) Without going into the animus of the questions asked by 
the lawyer and Nicodemus, suffice it to say they both, in effect, 
asked the same question, and the sense of the answer to each was 
the same : love of God and man is equivalent to re-birth. And He 
did not even intimate that He had an "army" sworn to "perse- 
cute" them if they refused to accept His teaching ! 

(4) Mr. Farrell had nothing to do with the "smack" of a 
question; his association was formed to give information con- 
cerning the faith and practices of Catholics, and all answers 
should have been confined to that purpose. Perhaps the associa- 
tion intended to answer such questions only as "smacked" of a 
desire to become a papist? He did not give me the answer, how- 
ever, that Christ gave the lawyer: the lawyer received the plain 
truth — did I get that from Farrell? But what has all this to do 
with the doctrine of "Intention" about which I was asking him? 

(5) Oh, certainly not; having formed an association, with per- 
mission of the bishop, to teach "heretics" what Catholics believe, 
the faith and practices of their church, surely he did not expect 
me to apply for information concerning salvation? Suppose one 
should desire such information, and ask the identical question, 
would Farrell's answer above "open a little, for a sincere mind, 
the flood-gates of that inimitable love for souls that the church of 
the Savior of mankind must have to be His Bride," or would the 
doctrine of Intention in connection with Farrell's answer cause 
the interested soul to fear that that dogma of the pope is a 
Jesuitical trick the teaching church hopes to "put over" on the 
Judgment Day when lost souls cry to God for vengeance, saying 
that it was the fault of the priest or penitent who did not have 
the right intention, and not the fault of those who possessed an 
infallible power to define what was necessary for salvation? 
Mysteries of Babylon! 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 27, 1917. 

Dear Sir: You were asking about Baptism, actual Baptism. 

Your idea of Catholic teaching was, that membership in the 
church is essential to salvation, that baptism is essential to mem- 
bership in the church, that the validity of baptism depends on 
the "intention" of the priest; thus, the priest holds the soul in 
the hollow of his heart (hand?). 

Your mistake was in thinking that actual baptism is essential 
to salvation. It is not. Desire for the grace of baptism is suffi- 
cient for salvation. Any Catholic half way instructed could have 
told you that. You will find it stated in Deharbe's Catechism, if 
you will take another look. 

There is no Catechism of Christian Doctrine published by 
Catholic authority in which it is not stated that there are three 
kinds of baptism — of water, of blood and of desire. "It is the 
teaching of the Catholic church that when the baptism of water 



160 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

is a physical or MORAL impossibility, eternal life may be ob- 
tained by the baptism of desire." (Cath. Ency. II, p. 266.) 

"Hower, only the first is a real sacrament. The latter two are 
denominated baptism only analogically, inasmuch as they supply 
the principal effect of baptism, namely, the grace which remits 
sins." (Ibid.) "Baptism^of desire (baptismus flaminis) is a per- 
fect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure 
love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (votum) 
of baptism." 

This doctrine is declared by the Council of Trent, Sess. VI, cap. 
iv, where in speaking of the necessity of baptism, it declares man 
cannot obtain original justice "except by the laver of regeneration 
or its desire (voto)." The same doctrine is taught by Pope Inno- 
cent III (De Baptismus, cap. IV). 

The contrary is condemned by Pius V and Gregory XII, in pro- 
scribing the 31st and 33rd propositions of Baius (author of the 
system known as Baiasism). 

Truly, therefore, baptism is not essential to salvation; that is, 
actual baptism, which is what you were asking me about. 

Yours truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

Per R. M. C. 

COMMENT 

Instead of answering the simple question regarding "inten- 
tion," Mr. Farrell comes forward with another long letter and 
presents other matters not at all pertinent to the question. To 
get the original question again before us, I reproduce it: 

"22. If baptism is essential to salvation and membership in 
your church, and if its validity depends upon whether or not the 
officiating priest had the right 'intention' at the time of baptizing 
a subject of the church, how can any one know he is a member of 
your church — from the pope on down ; do you require a certificate 
from the priest wherein he declares he had the right 'intention' 
at the time of performing the ceremony?" 

This question is somewhat in the form of a syllogism: salva- 
tion, membership, and intention were admitted, while the conclu- 
sion was to be established by Farrell's answer, but he failed. 

Is there any suggestion in the question calling for the above 
letter? Does it even remotely touch upon the question? He con- 
tinues to treat the subject of baptism, a question I did not raise; 
having a copy of Deharbe's Catechism, I am familiar with the 
subject to which he devotes so much space; its questions and 
answers are ample, and often amplified by foot-notes — all except 
the doctrine of intention: this it touched upon very lightly and 
dropped, just as Farrell did; here is Deharbe: 

Question "16. What intention must he have who baptizes?" 

Answer: "He must have the intention to baptize indeed — that 
is, to do what the church does, or what Christ has ordained." 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 161 

In his letter Mr. Farrell is soliloquizing upon what he thinks 
I ought to have thought, which caused him to wander away from 
the point and delve into baptism of "desire" and of "blood" ! After 
all that, he does not attempt to explain how one may know, ac- 
cording to the teaching and law of his church, that he is in reality 
a member thereof. He says my mistake was in thinking that 
actual baptism was essential to salvation — even had I made this 
mistake, the letters from Cardinal Gibbons, The Sunday Visitor, 
and Bishop Keiley show me to be in "distinguished" company in 
this respect. 

The association seems to be laboring under the impression that 
I should have been inquiring concerning salvation rather than 
as to what Catholics are taught by their church, as per invitation. 

Any school boy should know that no law is enacted except there 
is a possibility and probability of those things being done which 
it would prevent; if there were no thieves in the world, we would 
not have a law against stealing; so, if the Council of Trent 
enacted a decree requiring the priest to have the right "inten- 
tion" when he officiates in the church, it is self-evident that the 
church recognized the possibility of a priest not having the right 
intention, which would cause shipwreck to the penitent, while 
that doctrine places a soul's eternal destiny in the hands of the 
priest; therefore, no Catholic, be he pope or layman, knows he is 
a member of the papal church. This is the post Farrell should 
have hitched to when he "drove up," but he wouldn't. Why? 

The Redeemer said that the way of salvation was so plain that 
a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein: the pope 
says the institution he "thinks" for is the only true church estab- 
lished by Christ, yet neither he nor any of his priests can explain 
the way; the lawyer discovered it, so did Nicodemus, and the 
Eunuch — even the thief on the cross was not at a loss in the 
matter. Amusing? No, tragic ! robbing the Master of the fruits 
of His suffering and death, placing salvation in the hands of 
men who are often viler wretches than any penitent who kneels 
before them seeking "absolution." 

The doctrine of "Intention" of the papal church reminds me of 
the effort satan made to get Christ to fall down and worship him: 
promising all things, but unable to make delivery! The pope says 
to all mankind: "Join my church, obey my decrees, let me think 
for you, and while I may have to let you spend a term in purga- 
tory, you will be saved at last — providing, however, my priest had 
the right INTENTION when he baptized you: without that, your 
'internal assent' to all my dogmas, and your 'external respect' 
for all my decrees will avail you nothing — you have not bAen 
baptized!" 

Deharbe declares that "Intention" is required on the part of 



162 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the priest, that's all; no foot-note — like Farrell, he let it alone! 

That is not the only "dogma" of the only true church which 
the pope and his priests will not discuss: Taunton, in the Canon 
Law, under the caption of "Preaching," referring to the Decree 
of the Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, says : "The Council of Trent 
warns preachers not to enter into curious and subtle points in 
their sermons on Purgatory." So purgatory is a "closed" ques- 
tion — let it alone! Does the way seem clear under the pope? 

On this subject the Manual of Christian Doctrine teaches: 

"31. What is requisite that the lawful minister of a sacrament 
confer it validly? 

"It is necessary and it is sufficient that, while administering the 
sacrament, he have the intention of doing what the church does. 

"32. Why is it necessary that the minister have the intention 
of doing what the church does? 

"Because without this the action would be profane and not 
sacred ; for the minister would act in his own name and not as a 
minister of God." 

That "church" makes those statements to the "faithful" — and 
they dare not question, and the priest dare not attempt to answer 
— and all are afraid to take it up with the pope, because he would 
be in the same plight before Reason! 

If one approaches the nest of a partridge, we are told, the old 
bird will leave it, making considerable noise — -fluttering around, 
creating the impression that it is crippled and easily captured, 
but it keeps withdrawing from the nest, keeping just ahead and 
out of reach of its enemy, until it is assured attention has been 
diverted from the nest, then — away it flies! Mr. Farrell (?) can 
"flutter away" all he wants to: he may go as far as he will into 
the baptism of water, "desire" or "blood," but MY intention is 
not to let him get away from the "Intention" of this sacred papal 
dogma as taught by his church ! The Roman church teaches that 
it is necessary for me and my fellow-countrymen to submit to the 
authority of the pope to be saved, and if not submissive, it has the 
right to employ force, even to the extent of resorting to capital 
punishment; to make it "expedient" for her to enjoy these 
"rights" her subjects must exert themselves to bring about con- 
ditions favorable thereto, but even after she should get you, she 
has nothing tangible to offer: cannot prove to a reasonable cer- 
tainty that there is a real member of that institution in the world, 
notwithstanding which, she would commit murder as a means of 
making "converts" to the only "true" faith! 

"Truly, therefore," says Farrell, "baptism is not essential to 
salvation; that is, actual baptism, which is what you were asking 
about." He omits from this sentence the words "and member- 
ship in your church," which were incorporated in the original 
question. This omission is very important, as it would put a 



The Roman. Catholic Church Challenged 163 

different meaning on the question, making his answer correct; but 
I will not grant the omission. I was asking about "actual" 
(water) baptism in connection with the question of "Intention," 
both of which he denied, declaring that "any person, Catholic, 
non-Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Infidel could administer valid 
vaptism," which leaves no doubt about his having understood the 
question thoroughly in the first instance. He became very badly 
tangled in his own barrage: Baptism of "desire" or of "blood" 
being mere substitutes for "water" baptism — to be accepted where 
the baptism of water is not possible — strengthens the fact of the 
necessity for baptism. That "water" baptism is requisite is proved 
when he said that ANY ONE could administer it — that the 
church provides for emergency cases when the duly appointed 
minister is not available accentuates the necessity of baptism — 
yet Farrell denies it! These substitutes for actual baptism, where 
the intention is accepted for the deed, become "actual baptism" to 
all intents and purposes — they constitute "valid baptism," and to 
successfully sustain his answer as to "water" baptism would be 
absolutely voiding BAPTISM, so when Mr. Farrell admits and 
explains how a Catholic, non-Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Infidel 
can administer valid baptism of desire or blood I will admit his 
answers are true, also that he knew what I was thinking about. 
When a political institution attempts to masquerade as Chris- 
tian, taking for its rule and guide the "Traditions of of Men" 
instead of the Bible, being absolutely under the government of an 
"infallible man" instead of an "Infallible God," it certainly needs 
an Index to prevent its adherents from investigating such "holy" 
dogmas as "Intention," "Infallibility," etc., and subject them to 
an inhuman oath when proposing the like for belief. 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 29, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Of course, the answers you received to the question 
you submitted to Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Keiley and the Sun- 
day Visitor were also correct. 

You asked them a different question. You seemed to be con- 
cerned about salvation in that question. They, no doubt, took you 
in good faith, thinking that you wished information for your 
spiritual comfort, believing that you were in doubt on the im- 
portant question of your eternal salvation; therefore, they an- 
swered you just as our Lord answered Nicodemus. Do you object 
that they treated your question as though asked sincerely? 

You know, of course, that the Catholic church places more em- 
phasis upon the value of baptism and its necessity where physi- 
cally and morally possible, than any other denomination, account- 
ing the baptism of infants even as necessary, even more neces- 
sary than for adults, since except by a miracle of grace they can 
not have the desire or make that pure act of love which is 
a substitute for baptism; therefore, the church loses no oppor- 
tunity to teach to all who are in good faith the ineffable graces 



164 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

bestowed in this sacrament. And it is because her clergy have no 
time for indiscriminate controversy that they answer such ques- 
tions as you propounded without any qualification. 

They know that if you accepted their answer, as they took your 
question, in good faith, you will be benefited by it and if you have 
merely laid a trap to "ensnare" them, like the Pharisees who 
"watched" the Master and tried by "subtlety" to inveigle Him, 
you are only bringing confusion upon yourself in the end. 

Be fair; all big men are fair. What, weren't you fair to me? 
Oh, yes, you were fair to me. Well, weren't you fair to Cardinal 
Gibbons and the others? Yes, you were fair to them. Then, what 
do you mean, "be fair"? You were not fair to yourself. You did 
not give your mind a chance; that is what I mean. There is some- 
thing in every man and there is something in you that is bigger, 
more worthy, more noble than the petty predisposition to play 
smart at the expense of right and truh. 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

Comment on this long letter, wherein Mr. Farrell is continuing 
to "flutter away" from the doctrine of "Intention" on the broken 
pinions of "baptism," is barely necessary, as it shows perhaps 
better than anything I may say how he attempts to becloud the 
question; but as he continues to press a subject NOT raised by 
me, but admitted in original question, a few observations will be 
in order. I do know the value the Roman church attaches to 
baptism — it being the first sacrament upon the validity of which 
all the other six depends, which so deeply impressed me with his 
flat denial. The Bible declares that whosoever believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved — baptism being an outward symbol of 
the inward cleansing which comes with the re-birth, while the 
pope teaches that "in baptism . . . original sin, and all the sins 
committed before baptism, are forgiven" while those committed 
afterward is forgiven by the priest, who may require the peni- 
tent to do penance, which may consist in paying a sum to the 
"church" or perform some act of torture to mind or body. Those 
of a studious, theological turn of mind can ponder over this 
dogma of that church which imputes to the symbol the power and 
work of the Holy Spirit and makes the soul depend upon the 
priest instead of the Father for forgiveness of sin after baptism. 
Yes, I understand the emphasis Roman Catholicism places upon 
baptism — an emphasis that found expression in the Jesuit priests 
going into heathen lands, as stated before, becoming members of 
heathen priesthoods in order to "baptize" the people, without 
their knowledge or consent, making a specialty of baptizing chil- 
dren. In the "Short History of Religion" contained in Deharbe's 
Catechism, the information is conveyed in the statement that 
Francis Xavier "himself declares in one of his letters that in one 
month he administered Holy Baptism to ten thousand heathen." 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 165 

Xavier was a Jesuit "missionary, " Deharbe was a Jesuit — and it 
seems from his letters that the man who writes as "J. J. Farrell" 
is a Jesuit; they are especially trained in the art of evasion. 
Centuries ago they were denying their Christ as a means of 
winning converts to His banner: to-day Farrell is denying the 
necessity of that dogma; so essential did these Jesuit fathers of 
Farrell's church deem baptism that they practiced deceit to ad- 
minister it — their "intention" was, "The Greater Glory of God" — 
the "end justifying the means," all of which is now denied by 
him, the official exponent of Catholicism in Georgia! 

Some people wonder how the papal church has survived the 
Dark Ages; the solution to the problem is simple: just make it a 
capital crime to exercise the powers of the mind, interpret Holy 
Scripture, or read any book on faith or morals not issued accord- 
ing to the Rules of the Papal Index — make it a crime to hold an 
opinion contrary to the "thought" of an Italian foreigner clothed 
with power of enforcing his "thought," and you have a streak of 
darkness that will reach through Time and Eternity. 

Had the question of "intention" been presented by a Catholic — 
which would be impossible — the church would have disposed of it 
by stating that the pope had so declared, and that to question 
would be unbecoming the "faithful," while for a heretic to ask 
such questions, though ostensibly invited, is "butting in," or is 
questioning their religion, which Mr. A. J. Long said Catholics 
resent. He could show resentment — but could not answer ques- 
tions ! 

The Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia was asked to 
explain the dogma of "Intention." The octrine was denied, which 
made it necessary to deny also the dogma of baptism to sustain 
said denial of the main question. To demonstrate that his testi- 
mony was not according to established fact, baptism was referred 
to other witnesses, who promptly confounded his testimony, after 
which he writes long epistles discussing baptism, explains what 
he thinks the other witnesses thought I wished to know, seems 
hurt that I was not seeking information relative to salvation 
(after admitting the association was not formed for evangelical 
purposes), but never answered the direct question, how any one 
may know he is a "sure-enough" member of the pope's church, 
although the Bible commands the followers of Christ to be always 
ready to "give a reason for the faith that is within you." 

Mr. Farrell said I tried to "play smart at the expense of right 
and truth," but he does not "put his finger on the spot": does the 
papal church deem it an attempt to "play smart" for Reason to 
ask for an explanation of a doctrine which it proposes for belief, 
and claims it has the right to enforce belief, yet is unable to 
explain? The Christ invited questions — and did not "upbraid" 
His questioners! 



166 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 30, 1917. 

Dear Sir: You say you "are NOT satisfied" with my answer 
to Number 3. Evidently, however, you are convinced it is true, 
as you did not ask Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Keiley or the Sunday 
Visitor about it, although you had it before you when you wrote 
them. 

Of course, you are not "satisfied" because my answer dissolves 
into nothingness a link in the chain of your imagined conspiracy 
that you had so painfully wrought. Your Question 3 was based 
on the assumption that the seal of confession binds to secrecy the 
penitent as well as the priest. 

"If it does," you thrust, "how could you know that priests do 
not ask immoral questions of your women?" Now that was not 
half bad, had your assumed premise been sound. To cling to a 
point after it is blunted, however, shows bad judgment. 

When you were informed that the seal of confession does not 
bind the penitent, that every penitent is free to disclose matters 
of confession, that Catholics frequently talk among themselves 
about them; your premise broke down flat. 

You, then, can imagine NOTHING to keep us from knowing 
that immoral questions are not put to our women in confession. 
That is, unless you will accuse our women of concealing what 
nothing but their own complicity could compel them to conceal. 
You will not accuse them, so that ends the chapter, leaving abso- 
lutely nothing. 

The second quotation you impute to Liguori, I abjure. The 
first and last are not to the point ; you can see that. Your charge 
that Catholic men are "recreant to womanhood," I pass over; let 
our women make that. Very truly, 

JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

If Tabby was caught eating biddies to-day, we know he will do 
so again to-morrow, if occasion permits: Mr. Farrell had occa- 
sion, and he "abjured" baptism! It isn't necessary to engage a 
busy person with more than one question to show an intelligent 
jury what weight is to be given to the testimony of a witness who 
has testified contrary to the established facts in a case — therefore 
he has been impeached by his superiors in the faith. 

Perhaps I did not refer this question to the gentlemen named, 
knowing they "have no time for indiscriminate controversy." 
Cardinal Gibbons, Bishop Keiley and the Editor were asked a 
direct question; they had no knowledge of its import; it may be 
interesting to know, in this connection, that when some of them 
have "time for indiscriminate controversy," they may consider 
TRUTH more elastic than it really is; for instance, in his attempt 
to sustain the papal contention that Mary had no other children 
than Jesus, Cardinal Gibbons says, in his book, "Faith of Our 
Fathers," as to "first-born" not necessarily meaning there were 
other children: "We find this epithet applied to Machir, for in- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 167 

stance, who was the only son of Manasseh," while in Joshua vi:17 
the fact is mentioned that "the daughters of Manasseh" had an 
inheritance "AMONG HIS SONS:' 

When is a "point blunted"? A point can not be blunted unless 
it is driven against some resisting substance: certainly Mr. Far- 
rell will not say he has offered any resistance in his arguments to 
blunt any "point" of my questions — by evasion he always kept 
away from the point. It must be blunted, though, because he said 
so ! But it appears to me as long as a point meets with no resist- 
ance, penetrating without being forced, it is not blunted. 

Mr. Farrell (?) says he adjures the citation from Liguori — 
the papal church gives him that right! — he was very verbose in 
letters explaining what he knew I was familiar with, so why is 
he so sparing in regard to the teaching of Liguori? Why did he 
not cite from him? If he was not trying to conceal this doctrine 
— the doctrine that the papal church tried to put Mr. Watson in 
the penitentiary for exposing — it would have been the simple, 
honest, straightforward, convincing thing for him to have had 
this theology translated by a non-Catholic Latin scholar in Au- 
gusta and submitted it (Catholics can send it through the mails, 
but heretics like Tom Watson can not do so) ; this would have 
been conclusive. 

As this subject will be discussed at length in connection with 
another topic, I will leave the reader to muse over Mr. Farrell's 
expressive brevity in handling Liguori's (moral) Theology! 

Mr. Farrell is sure I am evidently convinced his anwer is true, 
as I did not refer it to Cardinal Gibbons : in referring to "truth" 
and the cardinal in the same breath, reminds me ! I believe I can 
prove to the satisfaction of Mr. Farrell even that his cardinal is 
not altogether above practicing deceit in matters affecting his 
church, but is in fact deceptive. 

In the "Manual of Prayers, for the Use of the Laity," a nota- 
tion on a fly-leaf reads, "having been diligently compiled and ex- 
amined, it is hereby approved" by James Cardinal Gibbons, bear- 
ing the imprimatur of Augustinus, Archiep. This imprimatur is 
an indication that the book was censored and printed in accord 
with the Rules of the Index, stamping it as true Catholic doctrine 
which laymen may read. Page 413 of this volume contains the 
"Profession of Faith" or layman's oath, wherein the promise is 
made to observe all that the church commands, to believe every- 
thing defined and declared by the sacred canons, especially all the 
decrees of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council, all of 
which are in the Canon Law of the Roman church to which I 
often refer. This Manual of Prayers, remember, is authorita- 
tive, being issued for the use of Catholic laymen; now, I pick up 
another book; it is written by James Cardinal Gibbons — written 
for Protestant readers and has no "imprimatur." It is a grand 



168 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

ex parte presentation of the Roman Catholic religion, and, like 
Mr. Farrell's answers to my questions, very plausible and satis- 
fying to those who know nothing of the subjects or who are un- 
critical; in his book the cardinal reveals one face (the religious) 
to a groping non-Catholic public, while he keeps the other face 
(the canon law and decrees) out of sight! 

In this book written for non-Catholic consumption the cardinal 
says, on page 220, "that the Catholic church has always been the 
zealous promoter of religious and civil liberty" and that "her 
doctrine is, that as man, by his own free will, fell from grace, 
so of his own free will must he return to grace. Conversion and 
coercion are two terms that can never be reconciled." We now 
turn to Canon 14 of the Seventh Session of the Council of Trent, 
which converts to Roman Catholicism swear to obey and believe, 
and we read: "If any one says that the baptized are not to be 
compelled to a Christian life by any other penalty save that they 
be excluded from the participation of the Eucharist and of the 
other sacraments until they repent, let him be anathema" (let 
him be damned) . Unless Mr. Farrell can reconcile that doctrine 
with the statements above cited from Gibbon's "Faith of Our 
Fathers," the cardinal will stand convicted of deceit — can this 
reconciliation be perfected? I think not! Gibbons was writing 
for Protestants — the Council of Trent was legislating for the 
faithful of the pope ; these two citations show the two faces of the 
papal church; one for the heretic, the other for the faithful, and 
reveal a deceitfulness not inculcated by Christ. 

The copy in hand mentioned above is the seventy-seventh 
edition, one million copies; perhaps it has had its weight in the 
"conversion" of those 500,000 adults Mr. Farrell boasts of; cer- 
tainly, if a person reads that book, and nothing else along that 
line — having no knowledge of the laws and decrees he swears to 
uphold and defend in becoming a member of that institution — he 
may embrace the papal faith, even though it may also be true that 
every argument presented by the cardinal would fade away as 
mist before the sun if both sides were diligently studied. No 
doubt this fact accounts for the law of that church which pro- 
hibits debating with heretics. 

Musing over Farrell's allusion to the cardinal, in the matter of 
establishing truth by his testimony, reminded me of other things 
in "The Faith of Our Fathers," especially where the cardinal 
refers to liberty and coercion, etc., so I wrote him the following 
letter, to see if a certain book supported the cardinal's state- 
ments : 

„ , ~ j- i oM, Macon, Ga., July 7, 1919. 

Rev. J. Cardinal Gibbons, ' ' J ' 

Baltimore, Md. 

Dear Cardinal: I have recently finished reading your book, 

"The Faith of Our Fathers," which was very interesting. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 169 

I was very much impressed with the statement, among other 
things, made in the "Introductory," p. xiv, that: 

"There is no Freemasonry in the Catholic church; she has no 
secrets to keep back. She has not one set of doctrines for the 
Bishops and Priests, and another for the laity. She has not one 
creed for the initiated and another for outsiders. Everything in 
the Catholic church is open and above board. She has the same 
doctrines for all — the pope and the peasant." 

I would thank you to send me a copy of the Roman Ritual: 
"Pontificale Romanum" (for which will remit), or advise where 
I may secure a copy of it. 

Thanking you for your attention, 

Very truly, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

I secured the book; I will let the reader judge whether or not 

it proves the cardinal a ( ) or supports his "Faith of Our 

Fathers" in the matters of civil and religious liberty and free will, 
which will be cited in pages to follow. In view of the cardinal's 
assertion that the papal church "has not one creed for the initi- 
ated and another for outsiders" makes Mr. McCreary's tactics 
appear very strange, indeed ! 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 31, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You have had a trick turned on you (or have you?) , 
where you quote from a "priest's hand book" questions that you 
say priests MUST ask of penitents. 

(1) First, there is no such book. Second, the questions you 
quote are from a layman's prayer book. They are questions the 
penitent asks himself in his secret examination of conscience, 
which he makes in preparation for confession. There is a list 
of such questions under each commandment, all framed in a way 
calculated to help the penitent to recall sins committed. 

(2) The object of these questions is exactly the contrary of 
what you say. They are provided so that the priest need NOT 
ask such questions of the penitent. So your indignant protest 
about the tearing off the garment of modesty, etc., is all lost. If 
a woman penitent has not sinned against purity she has nothing 
to say and the priest must not ask touching the subject. If she 
has been guilty, of course, she must confess; but who rends the 
garment of modesty in that case? 

(3) You object that confession is "unnatural." Well, it is no 
more unnatural for a woman than for a man, for a layman than 
for a priest; and you know doubtless that even the pope must 
make his confession the same way as any poor sinner. Unnatural? 
Well, it rubs nature rather hard sometime; but so did the suffer- 
ings of the Master; should we expect Him to do all the hard 
things, and leave us "primrose paths of dalliance"? 

(4) You attribute our submission to early training; but how 
do you account for the submission of thousands of adult converts 
(over 500,000 in this country alone last year) ? You do not fail 
to ring in the Index (My! how things must haunt you !) , but what 



170 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

could there be for the Index to conceal that people who use the 
confessional do not know? 

(5) In conclusion now; if we are satisfied with it, ought you 
not to be satisfied without it? Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell. 

COMMENT 

Yes, I have a copy of the book referred to. 

(1) Mr. Farrell says there is no such book — that the quotations 
are from a "Layman's Prayer Book" — all right, so far; but let 
us analyze the proposition : For Farrell to be correct in fact, and 
for a book to be a "layman's" in the true sense of the word, it must 
be one prepared and issued by laymen for the use of laymen — at 
least laymen must have a voice in determining its contents; if 
not, but is prepared and issued solely by Roman priests in accord 
with Rules of the papal Index FOR the use of laymen, then it's a 
"Priest's Hand Book" or "Priest's Prayer Book" for laymen. Mr. 
Farrell knows that no layman in the world can have a voice in 
such matters; he also knows that what laymen are to believe and 
what they are to do and what they are to avoid doing are all laid 
down, as Leo says, by the pope, assisted by the holy fathers (the 
forces that made the Dark Ages) who attend to all such things 
for laymen before they are born subject to them. 

A thorough investigation of this subject reveals the following: 
Only a nominal percentage of the Roman Catholics of the world 
can read ; now, as the papal church claims to be the same, always, 
everywhere, the suggested questions cited from the "prayer" 
book form an outline which must be followed — the information 
the priest must obtain in the confessional from men, women and 
children, and where people can not read, as is the rule where the 
papal church has control of education, then the priest must probe 
the most secret chambers of the heart as a doctor probes for an 
imbedded bullet, orally indicating the nature of the sins to be 
confessed, and draw them out with questions to the point. No 
sane person will attempt to deny this conclusion. Of course, it 
may be true, that in communities where an appreciable number of 
Catholics can read, the PRIEST puts the book of prepared ques- 
tions into their hands and gives them to understand that they 
must study them and make answer; in either case the result and 
effect are the same. There can be no moral difference between 
asking direct questions of a woman and placing a list of questions 
in her hands and demand that she take them up in sequence and 
answer "guilty" or "not guilty" to every count in the Decalog, 
specifying all circumstances surrounding each sin. 

A Georgia publicist was harassed five years in the courts for 
citing some of the questions prepared by Liguori, Dens, and 
others, that priests are required to ask women in the confessional, 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 171 

although said citations were printed in Latin, therefore, as I do 
not wish to "tangle" with Uncle Sam, who is becoming quick to 
obey the Roman church, I will not quote any of the raw language 
of these papal theological "saints," but will go just far enough to 
show what they are and what they do for a nation. 

(2) Two of the leading theologians of the papal church are 
Alphonsus Liguori and Peter Dens; the theology of one or the 
other, if not both, is taught in every Catholic seminary in the 
world where priests are being trained, and they declare, as to the 
confessional, that priests must have the following versicle in 
readiness : 

"Who, Which, Where, With Whom, Why, How, When."— Dens, 
Vol. VI, p. 125; Liguori, Vol. II, p. 464. 

(I most respectfully ask Mr. Farrell what becomes of the 
"garment of modesty" of those who voluntarily go through this 
or do so at the command of the priest?) 

In "The Mirror of the Clergy," p. 357, priests are instructed: 

"It is necessary for the confessor (priest) to know everything 
on which he is to exercise his judgment. Let him, then, with 
wisdom and subtlety, interrogate sinners on the sins which they 
may ignore, or conceal through same." 

Shame for their sin caused Adam and Eve to make garments 
of fig leaves, indicating there was some sense of righteousness 
left in them ; shame for sin except to the utterly depraved is con- 
cealed from the vulgar gaze of man by the "garment of modesty," 
and the less sinful, the tighter this garment is entwined. Where 
a bachelor priest finds this garment tightly drawn, he must be 
wise and subtle in his questions and tear it asunder! Mr. Farrell 
says, in par. 2, that "the object of these questions (in the hand 
book) is exactly the contrary of what you say"; is his statement 
supported by his saintly theologians, above cited? If not, who 
are more liable to be the deceiver, he teaching a heretic, or they 
teaching the pope's priests? 

Through the theologians the papal church puts this question to 
priests after they have heard the confessions of daughters, wives, 
mothers and sweethearts: 

"While hearing confession, have I not asked questions on sins 
against the Sixth (Seventh in Protestant Bible) Commandment, 
with the intention of satisfying my evil passions?" — Mirror of 
Clergy, p. 582. 

According to this doctrine of the papal church, the priest is first 
required to swim through a filthy sewer and after getting out is 
thrown in again to see if he enjoyed it! 

The very popular book by Debreyne instructs young priests in 
the "art" of questioning penitents, in a "Treatise on All the Sins 



172 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Against the Sixth Commandment," as well as questions on mar- 
ried life. 

Dens, Liguori, Debreyne, Bailey, and other Roman Catholic 
"holy" theologians warn priests against the determination of 
girls and married women refusing to confess sins against this 
commandment. These hell-hounds knew it would require the wis- 
dom and subtlety of the devil to tear from woman the garment of 
modesty of the soul and conscience that God provided as a pro- 
tection against the wiles of satan! 

In Apostolic days many of the people of the early church de- 
cided to have all things in common; there was nothing compul- 
sory about it. Ananias and his wife Sapphira deposited a part 
of their goods in the common fund and withheld a part. They 
tried to fool the people with their false piety, but God revealed 
their sin to Peter, who reminded them that they were not required 
to do as the others, that their lying deceit had been made known, 
so they paid the penalty — God punished them, not Peter: when 
the Jesuitical deceitfulness of the devil was manifested in the 
Garden of Eden, telling Adam and Eve that if they ate of the 
forbidden fruit "ye shall not surely die," they ate, contrary to 
the command of God, whereupon they discovered their nakedness 
and prepared a covering of fig leaves. Man lost Paradise through 
the wisdom and subtlety of the devil and was separated from 
God. To perfect a reconciliation, Christ gave His life to atone 
for that sin, so that all who call upon God for pardon in His 
name receive it. The papal church says this is not so; that God 
gave the pope's priests the right and power to forgive sin and 
inflict expiatory punishment by doing penance: if this be true, 
it shows that God is a "respecter of persons" — yet Peter said He 
was not — in that He did not give the Roman priests the same aid 
of the Holy Spirit in detecting sin as He did to Peter in the 
Ananias case, so that they could read or discern the hidden secrets 
of the hearts and minds of men and women; so, by implication, 
the pope says that, to overcome this grave oversight on God's part 
relative to papal priests in the confessional, it is necessary to put 
penitents through the grilling process of Liguori's Versicle, with 
wisdom and cunning! 

In the matter of the confessional, it appears to me that God 
ought at least to vouchsafe to the priest that "Divine assistance" 
of infallibility in carrying out the dogmas of the pope that the 
pope says he has in defining them to make sure that the dogma 
of the pope is infallible and that it would be without sinful con- 
sequences in its operation with the priest and penitent in the 
confessional. This is so logical, even a Hottentot would agree 
with it if he was permitted to exercise his own judgment in the 
premises ! 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 173 

The instant a woman confesses her sin to a man, that instant 
she doubtless becomes an instrument in his downfall; no person 
can act as the sewer through which must flow all the filth of 
human depravity without becoming defiled. The confessional 
destroys the Lord's Prayer, wherein is the petition, "Lead us not 
into temptation." If the pope has given the priest the power to 
call Jesus Christ from Heaven, cause Him to enter a piece of 
pancake and be devoured of men, surely the priest should be 
clothed with power to get His aid in the matter of locating sin in 
the confessional — be his X-Ray — as a means of keeping his serv- 
ant the priest out if unnecessary temptation in making subtle 
searches for the hidden sins of women and girls ! 

From these facts, it seems to me that the Italian church seeks, 
through the confessional, to pollute the human race at its very 
source, even as the devil did in the beginning by ensnaring 
woman; this conclusion is based on a consideration of what is 
required in the confessional, and the admission of papal evidence, 
as follows: 

Cardinal de Boland wrote a book for the exclusive use of 
priests; as Archbishop of Lyons, he was one of the pope's princes, 
and evidently knew what he was talking about when he said that 
priests are in "continual temptation" in the confessional with 
female penitents, and that "the soul is gradually enfeebled in such 
a way that the virtue of chastity is forever lost." Who rends the 
"garment of modesty" of priest and penitent, Farrell, women, or 
the damable dogmas of an Italian imposter posing as GOD? If 
the confessional destroys the chastity of priests, what does it do 
for women? If it destroys the chastity of one soul, yet is ordained 
of God, then the prayer to Him, "Lead us not into temptation," is 
of no avail — in fact, is a travesty on human intelligence ! 

Because of the large number of complaints lodged against the 
priests, Pope Pius IV issued a Bull requiring all girls and mar- 
ried women who had been seduced by their holy fathers in the 
confessional to denounce them to the "Holy" Inquisition. But 
before attempting its general enforcement throughout Europe, 
he made an experiment in Seville, Spain. Thirty Inquisitors were 
appointed to question the women, being provided with thirty 
notaries to record the answers. The women came; the Inquisitors 
found the task greater than could be attended to in the prescribed 
time, so thirty days more was granted, but because of the long 
stream of ladies the call was made for thirty additional days, 
which was also granted. The expectations of the pope were so 
far exceeded that the investigation was suspended, the ladies 
released from further testifying and the priests — left in statu 



quo 



It is a true saying, that "You can not prevent a bird from 



174 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

flying over your head, but can keep it from making a nest in your 
hair." The bird flies on, and is forgotten; but if a flitting evil 
thought crosses the mind it must be caged in memory's chambers 
and held there until convenient to release it in the confessional — 
the passing bird must be given a nest for a day or a year; if not, 
then a grave, mortal sin is committed in going to communion 
without having first turned the "bird" over to the priest, notwith- 
standing the Bible declares that a man must examine himself to 
see if he partake of the communion worthily or unworthily. 

Let us come a little nearer home. In 1901 President McKinley, 
by Joint Resolution of Congress, appointed a Commission to in- 
vestigate the lands held by papal priests in the Philippine Islands. 
In the name of the United States Government this Commission 
conducted a regular court of inquiry, submitting its findings to 
the Fifty-sixth Congress, second session, which report is known 
as Senate Document No. 190. The entire information along cer- 
tain lines may be condensed in the statement that a Roman priest 
was lord of all he surveyed ; when he officiated at a marriage, the 
"first night" was his if he was so inclined; if he fancied any 
woman he could deport the father, husband, brother or sweetheart 
if an objection was raised, as he had the power to banish. Ex- 
President William Howard Taft was Chairman of this Commis- 
sion, and the document presented to the Senate was sworn testi- 
mony. Because Uncle Sam has so many of the pope's faithful in 
high places, that document soon went out of print, and President 
McKinley was soon "removed from the earth by death." 

We will look a little closer around us for further evidence; 
State's evidence. Jeremiah J. Crowley was a Roman priest 
twenty-one years — from 1886 to 1907. In his remarkable book, 
"Romanism, a Menace to the Nation," he prints the names of a 
number of priests who co-operated with him in efforts to purify 
the Roman church from the inside in Chicago, 111., lodging more 
than one hundred documents with the pope of Rome and his rep- 
resentative in Washington, D. C, containing charges against the 
hierarchy, which received the same treatment as the report from 
Seville, Spain — nothing was done, except to promote some of the 
worst priests to better fields, according to Crowley. On pages 
62-3 he prints a letter which he says was signed by 1,500 Catholic 
women of Chicago and sent to Archbishop Quigley demanding 
that he protect them from drunken, lecherous priests, the last 
paragraph reading: "We humbly and respectfully look to you 
for protection and redress." 

Mr. Crowley states that "Priestly celibacy and auricular con- 
fession have been, and are now, prolific sources of crime and licen- 
tiousness (p. 71). This doctrine actually increases crime (p. 73). 
It was established as a portion of the system before the thirteenth 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 175 

century — history attests that it originated in the licentiousness 
of the Roman clergy in the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, 
and made a law of the church at the Fourth Council Lateran in 
1215, was confirmed by the Council of Trent, Sess. XIV (p. 74) . 
This wholesale demoralization was one of the principal motives 
for instituting celibacy and auricular confession. The result ac- 
complished was just what the Vatican machine wanted. This de- 
moralization compelled wicked priests, prelates and other mem- 
bers of the hierarchy of both sexes to stand by each other for the 
Vatican System — stand by Authority, right or wrong," (p. 77). 
No papist would meet him in debate, but a so-called "fanatic" 
ruined his mind, it is said, by breaking a water-pitcher on his 
head at one of his lectures ! 

P. A. Seguin tells the same story (and his testimony was an- 
swered by a broken jaw-bone and a fractured arm) ; the priests 
and historians with manhood enough to say anything at all in 
each country and century prove its demoralizing effect. 

The pope teaches, and Catholics believe, that the Italian is the 
only "true" church established by Jesus Christ : now, if the papal 
church is Christian, that is, follower of Christ, it must give un- 
questionable evidence that it tracks Christ in all things; so, let 
us make only one test and see if papalism is following Him: 
When the Samarian woman met Jesus at the well, did He ask 
her, "Who, Which, Where, With Whom, How, When," according 
to the papal versicle, or did He simply inform her what she knew 
was true? Did He quizz the woman taken in sin and brought 
before Him at the temple — was she "grilled" by any process simi- 
lar to that invented by Liguori? NO! Are the popes Christlike 
in the confessional? If the Christ did not probe — which would 
have been the use of force, destroying free moral agency — what 
right has a bachelor priest to probe the hearts of females? 

The devil, with a plausible, Jesuitical lie, got Eve into his 
power, and it required a God to die to undo the mischief. From 
that day to this, satan has never relaxed his efforts to strike at 
God through His creatures for casting him out of Heaven; by 
dominating the woman, satan knows he can land mankind in hell 
if there is any chance of doing so at all — so observe how he uses 
women: Mohammedanism centers around the harem; Morman- 
ism, polygamy; Romanism, the confessional! 

Mr. Farrell (?) says, "If she has been guilty, of course she 
must confess." But, who is it that says she must — God? NO; 
the Italian pope says so ! 

Here is a maiden, sweet as the perfumes of many flowers, pure 
as a lily, artless as a dove : in his going to and fro seeking whom 
he may devour, the devil causes an evil thought, like the bird, to 
flash across the mind's vision; she goes to her "father-confessor" 



176 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

who by wisdom and cunning makes her refresh her memory, the 
repetition accentuates the thought — the bird has been caged by 
the assistance of a papal priest — and the clutches of satan may 
never be broken ! 

Charles Chiniquy was a member of the papal church fifty years, 
twenty-five as a priest; he turned State's evidence: he said that 
he attended one dying priest in Canada who confessed he had 
heard about 1,500 confessions of married women and girls, and 
that he had destroyed or scandalized at least 1,000 of them with 
depraved questions, while the purity of 95 was destroyed by him 
through actual sin. (That priest grasped the meaning or sug- 
gestion of the "fathers" : couldn't marry one but went wrong with 
almost one hundred.) 

Chiniquy said a banker would not let a priest go into his vault, 
handle his gold, pry into his private business affairs, but will let 
that same priest search out the hidden rooms of his wife's heart ! 
He was priest long enough to know what he was talking about. 

(3) It is said that the papal church once debated whether or 
not a woman had a soul ; anyway, the early fathers of that church 
abhorred her as a thing unclean, yet some of them always "used" 
her, even when she belonged to another man. With these facts in 
mind, it is not hard to understand how Farrell (?) can say it is 
no more unnatural for a timid, shrinking girl or wife to unrobe, 
as it were, in the presence of a wine-fed bachelor agent of popery 
than for a man. Shame on anything that calls itself a man who 
says that! I have suspected before now that "Farrell" was not 
doing this writing for the Catholic Laymen's Association; my 
suspicions are now confirmed. I do not believe a Catholic layman 
could make that assertion — it "smacks" too much of the priest! 

"Unnatural," adds this priest or cleric, "well, it rubs nature 
rather hard sometime; but so did the sufferings of the Master." 
What blasphemy! Christ's sufferings did not rub nature at all; 
to break the chains, pay the debt and set the captive free from 
sin was the task for a God, and when it was "finished" on the 
cross, all Nature shook in acclaim for the Majesty of its God. 
The price was paid — the chasm between Man and his God 
bridged, the throne of grace once more accessible; notwithstand- 
ing this, and also that the confessional is liable to destroy the 
priest and penitent, Farrell says it is no more unnatural for a 
woman than a man. Papal theologians acknowledge that the con- 
fessional is a constant danger to priests, which is equivalent to 
saying that in trying to follow Christ there is grave danger of 
losing your soul. "It rubs nature rather hard," I will admit, for 
a soul to be Christ-like where it must go through the Italian con- 
fessional in life, and pagan purgatory after death— and never 
know even that it was really after all a member of the Italian 
institution ! 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 177 

The "holy" fathers realized that the confessional would "nib 
nature rather hard sometime"; for it is only after a priest takes 
the vow of celibacy that he is initiated into the mysteries of the 
confessional through the study of Rome's Moral Theology — 
studies which no man can pursue without degradation to mind 
and body — studies which act upon the natural organs and cause 
pollution, yet young priests are brazenly told that "There is no 
sin for ycu in these pollutions." — Dens, Vol. I, p. 315. (If the 
studies themselves have this effect, what will result from their 
use in the confessional on priest and penitent?) The popes have 
certainly made it possible for Roman priests to travel "primrose 
paths of dalliance" in the confessional, yet Christ said, "Take My 
yoke upon you, for the yoke is easy and the burden is light." The 
gulf between the Gospel of Christ and the dogma of the pope is 
as deep and wide as that between Heaven and Hell. 

(4) I account for it on several grounds. Some one has said you 
could sell moonshine — not the kind revenue officers hunt — if it 
could be bottled and adequately advertised: with the newspapers 
filling their columns every time the pope or one of his principal 
agents sneezes or has himself interviewed, or a notice is printed 
of some papal clan holding a meeting, monopolizing the picture 
screen to advertise priests, nuns, shrines, crucifixes, relics, and 
so on, preventing all discussions of papalism in the press, apply- 
ing the principles of the boycott in attempts to prevent Protestant 
preachers from making a comparison of papalism with Protes- 
tantism, closing public halls against this information being dis- 
seminated, making it a crime to sell papers on the streets that 
criticze the decrees and dogmas of the pope, attempts to put men 
in the penitentiary for citing in Latin from papal theologians, 
intimidating men in all stations of political, business and private 
life, censoring the school books of the nation, I doubt if there 
were as many as one hundred among that whole number who 
knew or know any more about papalism than I did a few years 
ago— that the very oath they swore when they joined makes them 
enemies of the very Government that harbors and gives them the 
protection of its laws! 

"You do not fail to ring in the Index," said Farrell. "But what 
could there be for the Index to conceal . . .?" For one thing, it 
conceals the fact that the confessional is an invention of the Dark 
Ages, and that it has no warrant for existence in the Gospels of 
Christianity, and that the "history" of the thing, written by Cath- 
olics who endeavored to live Christ-like, condemns it as being 
destructive, rather than an aid to salvation. 

(5) Priests of Rome know that nearly all women look upon the 
confessional as did those of Chicago; that they shrink from it 
naturally as being something unclean, and that "it rubs nature 



178 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

rather hard sometime" for them to enter it, so I am not satisfied 
with it, even if Catholics are ; I am no more satisfied with it than 
I would be content to know that a desolating disease was preva- 
lent in some other part of the country, but headed my way (and 
if the laws of the pope are not "headed" my way, they are headed 
toward no one!) I look upon Roman Catholics under papalism 
just as the United States looked upon the poor Cubans under 
Spanish and papal misrule: brow-beaten, mentally downtrodden, 
spiritual skeletons who fear to ask but must accept with a smile 
whatsoever is given them! At times, when I consider what 
Italian popery has done for the peoples of the world, and what 
would be the fate of Catholics themselves right here in Georgia 
were it not for the presence of Protestantism which TIES HER 
BLOODY HANDS, and then realize how hard Catholic laymen 
are struggling to advance that system, I feel toward them a little 
of the resentment I have for the system. For them to bury their 
heads in the sand (in the Index) and yell "LIAR" when facts are 
presented does not hide the facts any more than the ostrich is 
hidden from the hunter because he has stuck his head in the sand ! 

Farrell says, "If we are satisfied with it, ought not you to be 
satisfied without it?" The pipe-smoking opium fiend and the 
drunkard ask the same question, and my reply is the same to 
Farrell as to them. 

To return to the Cubans : They would still be plodding in a life- 
less, degraded, servile, starving, emaciated state, had they not 
been liberated by America; in this condition they may have gone 
on until they became extinct without knowing they were more 
than a species of bipedal animals but for their enforced emanci- 
pation : for the only freedom the Roman church inculcates is, free- 
dom from having to think in matters of faith and morals. Cath- 
olics may be "satisfied with it" (the confessional) — they may re- 
main as the Cubans were; I do not hope to influence them, be- 
cause they fear the pope, who has decreed excommunication 
against those who read such as this for the purpose of honestly 
weighing the matter; but if my efforts will keep one soul from 
being ensnared in the toils of the fowler, I will consider my work 
not in vain as a freeman discharging his duty as he comprehends 
it; and if Roman Catholic women in America are NOT crucified 
in the confessional, as demanded by their pope, they owe a debt 
of gratitude to Protestantism which only eternity can reveal. 

To those who can read, the questions in the hand-book must be 
read and answers rendered to the priest; Farrell says they are 
provided "so that the priest need NOT ask such questions of the 
penitent." In this matter, the priest is like a highway robber who 
meets his victim at some secluded spot — it makes no difference 
whether the highwayman "covers" him with a gun and makes him 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 179 

"hand over" his valuables, or probes his pockets himself; it makes 
no difference to the penitent man or woman whether the priest 
draws the pope's dogma on them and forces a "voluntary" con- 
fession, or whether he employs "wisdom" and "subtlety" in prob- 
ing the heart — the result in each case is the same. 

When a pope issues a Bull or Decree known as "Motu Proprio," 
he is "using the fullness of his powers"; and what he commands 
in such Bull is valid, "even when it would be contrary to laws," 
or when "contrary to his own decrees." — Taunton's Canon Law, 
p. 446. 

The real meaning of such a decree is, "Above the Law." 

On October 9, 1911, "Pius PP. X" issued a Motu Proprio decree 
to protect the Roman Catholic hierarchy, both men and women, 
against scandal, and show contempt for civil law, excommunicat- 
ing any person who presumes to summon a Roman Catholic eccle- 
siastic before a lay tribunal, either for a civil or criminal offense, 
as follows: 

"In these evil days, when ecclesiastical immunities receive no 
consideration, and not only priests and clerics, but even bishops 
and cardinals of the Holy Roman church, are cited before lay 
tribunals, this condition of things absolutely demands of Us to 
restrain by severe penalty those who can not be otherwise de- 
terred from the commission of so heinous a crime against the 
religious character. Therefore, by this Motu Proprio We deter- 
mine and ordain that whatever private person, lay or cleric, man 
or woman, shall, without having obtained permission of ecclesias- 
tical authorities, cite to a lay tribunal and compel to appear there 
publicly any ecclesiastical person, either in a criminal or civil 
case, will incur excommunication 'latae sententiae' specially re- 
served to the Roman Pontiff. This by these Letters is decided, 
and We wish it to stand ratified, everything to the contrary not- 
withstanding." 

Pius X was voicing the Encyclical of Leo XIII, who said that 
"no private person may arrogate to himself the office of judge 
which Christ our Lord has bestowed on that ONE ALONE (the 
pope) whom He placed in charge of His Lambs and His Sheep. 
. . . Subjects should be admonished not to rashly judge their 
prelates even if they chance to see them acting in a blameworthy 
manner. They are to be warned against the danger of . . . op- 
position to the superiors whose shortcomings they may notice. 
Should, therefore, the superiors have committed grievous sins 
their inferiors ought not to refuse them respectful submission 
. . . even when they are rightly judged to have deserved censure," 
p. 203, subject, "Chief Duties of Christians (Catholics) as Citi- 
zens." 

Pius X was Leo's successor; these two men lived and died in 
our day; and it seems that as the Roman Italian church advances 
in years it digs deeper and wider the chasm to engulf the human 



180 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

race; here we see how the pope first forces his subjects into the 
confessional, then threatens with excommunication those who 
may see fit to protest against what may take place there with the 
bachelor priest. Remember, Americans ! Not only does this Law 
of an Italian monarch trample the laws of the land under his 
unhallowed feet, but there are millions of women who are driven 
into the confessional by the pope's laws in America, and there are 
about 65,000 women in America locked up in papal prisons called 
convents, where the LAW of the land is forbidden to enter, be- 
cause such places have become the territory of the pope — but the 
priests have keys to said asylums; the relic of ancient paganism 
revived by the pope when papal mental darkness covered the 
known world. Remember, also, that hundreds of thousands of 
Americans, in their ignorance of Romanism, are annually becom- 
ing tangled in the meshes of that foreign institution each year — 
how do you know that your daughter or sister will escape being 
caught in it, when you are forcing it across their paths by send- 
ing them to Catholic schools and permitting Roman Catholic 
teachers in the public school? 

The laws of the pope are a blot upon civilization as to the con- 
fessional, which has been abolished in some Roman Catholic 
States, and such laws are a challenge thrown in the face of every 
free man in America, and membership in that institution should, 
ipso facto, disfranchise any one from exercising the rights of citi- 
zenship — being alien in spirit and intention, they should be made 
such in fact as a means of preserving our civilization and our 
free institutions. 

One Romanist on a jury would no doubt cause the miscarriage 
of justice if papalism was involved, regardless of the crime: 
further, the Roman church boasts of seventeen or eighteen mil- 
lion members in America, and the Catholic man who bows to the 
Motu Proprio decree of Pius X has not at heart that welfare of 
women and mankind in general as fits him to assist in making 
and administering the laws of a free people; where is the actual 
difference between this law of an infallible pope and the "rights" 
the priesthood claimed in the Philippines? The laws of the pope 
afford 20,000 bachelors the Time, the Place, the Opportunity, and 
Immunity — and those priests are obliged either to be saints or 
devils. In this connection I fully concur in what ex-Priest Charles 
Chiniquy said : "I do not say that all priests and female penitents 
fall . . . thanks be to God . . . but these are exceptions. . . . 
The confessional is like the spider's web. How many unsuspecting 
flies find death when seeking rest on the beautiful frame-work of 
their deceitful enemy! How few escape! And this only after a 
most desperate struggle. See how the perfidious spider looks 
harmless in his retired dark corner . . . how patiently he waits 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 181 

for his opportunity! But look how quickly he surrounds his vic- 
tim with his silky, delicate and imperceptible links; how merci- 
lessly he sucks its blood and destroys its life!" Priests in the 
confessional are as worms gnawing on the tap-root of the fairest, 
most fragrant and healing flower that grows in God's garden on 
earth — woman. 

Americans! no use to waste energy on the average Catholic 
man ! He must believe a thing is not so, even if he is sober and 
sees it with his own eyes, if the priest says it is not so ; here is the 
law by which he is governed: Says "Saint" Liguori, "That we 
may in ALL things attain the truth that we err not in anything, 
we ought ever to hold, as a fixed principle, that what I see WHITE 
to be BLACK if the superior authority of the church define it to 
be so," which doctrine was confirmed by Pope Gregory XVI in an 
Encyclical, August 15, 1832, saying, "If the church so requires, 
let us sacrifice our own opinions, our KNOWLEDGE, our IN- 
TELLIGENCE and the MOST SUBLIME ATTAINMENTS of 
the human UNDERSTANDING." And now who is it that says 
this? The CHURCH; who is the church? The POPE ! And who 
are the "superiors"? Any one who is NOT a LAYMAN! The 
average Catholic is so steeped in this papal doctrine that he is 
more ready to kill one who makes these facts known or discusses 
them than he is to seek the truth, or try to change them — he 
is as a corpse in the hands of the priests. Take A. J. Long, of 
this city, for example; he says "a Catholic's religion is so much a 
part of him that he naturally takes exception to those who ques- 
tion his belief or practices as such." Let me explain right here 
why "a Catholic takes exception" to criticism of his religion or 
his pope; in the Catechism by Deharbe the question is asked, 
"34. In how many ways may we become accessory to another per- 
son's sin, and be answerable for it?" Of the nine ways, we quote 
two of them: "3. By consent." "6. By silence." Now we have 
it! If a newspaper discusses the faith and practices of Catholics, 
or a preacher does so, or a lecturer does it, or any individual in 
any manner, if Catholics do not "take exception" they become 
accessories to the "crime" and "thus are as guilty before God as 
if we had committed it ourselves; or, it may be, even more so." 
(Ans. to qu. No. 35.) This accounts for the activity of Catholics 
in Congress, in city councils, and as private citizens, to suppress 
with the boycott or other strenuous methods any criticism of 
popery, for, to remain silent, is to make them as guilty as he who 
committed the deed! Weigh that proposition well, Americans! 
Does it tend to establish democracy and uphold the principles of 
freedom of our land, or destruction? So, I repeat: there is no 
use bothering with Catholics; but there is some hope of awaken- 
ing sleepy-eyed Americans to the presence of this foreign, obnox- 



182 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

ious, poisonous weed that will choke the life out of our LIBER- 
TIES unless we take up Rome's challenge, and in the name of 
Freedom and in behalf of helpless victims on our shores, pass such 
laws as will abolish the confessional, the convent, and put all 
children of school-age in the Free Public Schools, the great Melt- 
ing Pot, and make Americans of them instead of subjects of a for- 
eigner whose laws are destructive of every principle which has 
made this a great nation; make it a felony with an adequate 
penalty to teach any theory of government that conflicts with the 
Constitution of the United States. 

It is alleged by some students that there are twenty-five million 
Jesuits in the world — secret and otherwise; this order controls 
the Roman Italian institution; here are a few of the principles 
of Jesuitism, according to a French Roman Catholic historian, 
de Cormenin, Vol. II, p. 313: 

"It is not a great sin for young girls to abandon themselves to 
love before marriage, nor for women to receive the embraces of 
other men, and be unfaithful to their husbands, under certain 
circumstances. . . . Young women without experience think that 
to be chaste they must call for aid and resist their seducers with 
all their strength ; it is not so. They are equally pure if they are 
quiet and do not resist. We sin but by consent and co-operation." 

It is no exaggeration to say that Jesuit casuistry destroys every 
command of the Decalog. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 1, 1917. 
Dear Sir: Your objection to my answer to Question 4 shows a 
lack of discrimination. (1) 

(2) There is one Law for Catholics in regard to Masonry, one 
order, one corwmand, and only one; which is, not to join the order 
or in any way encourage or assist it as such. Now, unless Masons 
insist that we agree to join the order or assist the order as such, 
they can live in peace with us. We are not asking them to agree 
to join the church or assist the church as such before offering to 
live at peace with them; do they demand the converse of us? We 
do not believe it. 

(3) You say, "If the various Grand Masters . . . were to issue 
letters ... the Catholic church (in this country) long ago would 
have been stripped of her faith and practice in action." Strange, 
now, isn't it? The Grand Masters are not infallible; and I pre- 
sume they have not got an Index; but they have only "to issue 
letters" and, despite the guarantees of a free people, the thing, 
you say, is done. Though they have less than 2,000,000 subjects 
(you force the term), they could outlaw nearly 20,000,000 free 
citizens ! And you talk of liberty. 

(4) Some Catholics have an idea that this is just what was 
done in France, Portugal, perhaps Mexico and elsewhere. And, 
now, you say in reference to this country— "Masonry has taken 
very little notice of the pope and his children, BUT some day"—. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 183 

If you speak by the "card" here, can you wonder if we sometimes 
think that after all the pope may not be so far wrong? 
(5) Do you speak by the card, my friend? 
Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) If the Catholic Laymen's Association can convince one 
rational being that the pope expects Catholics to "extirpate the 
foul plague" of Masonry merely by refusing to become members 
or assist it in any manner, then I will admit a "lack of discrimi- 
nation." But let us look into this. The esprit de corps of Catholics 
to a large extent is to be found in the Catechism; it teaches that 
there are "Six sins against the Holy Ghost," the third being, 
"Resisting the known Christian truth"; among the nine ways one 
may become accessory to another person's sin is, "9. By defense 
of the ill done." Now, Freemasonry and all orders as well as 
Protesantism, and those who belong to no lodge or church, are 
guilty of sin against the Holy Ghost, according to popery, which 
is logically then an "ill" being done; and he who sees a wrong 
being done and is "silent" and does not exert himself to prevent 
it, becomes guilty himself of the "ill done." 

(2) In my limited investigation of Romanism, I find that in 
days gone by, the Roman church burnt Masons at the stake as 
such, for being such — that it was death to be a Mason ; does Leo's 
strictures and accusations show the church has the same spirit 
to-day as when she put those men to death, or do they show that 
in this instance the church has changed? If she has NOT changed, 
then she only bides her time — "expediency." The last sentence 
of this paragraph is true; of the 2,000,000 more or less in 
America, not a single man has ever been solicited to join; freely 
ye come, freely ye go. 

(3) Sure! "The Grand Masters are not infallible," neither are 
the members of the order ; in fact, they often show signs of being 
real human — so near human, that they are liable to resent the 
effort of the pope to "extirpate" them in America. ("Extirpate"; 
uproot entirely; destroy wholly.) The nagging of the order by 
priests in their papers, the attempt to bar them from army can- 
tonments while Rome was admitted as such — such as this may 
arouse the sleeping lion, and the real contest between the PRIN- 
CIPLES of POPERY and what Masonry stands for would be 
fully presented to the American people for an everlasting decision, 
which would no doubt result in stripping the pope's church of her 
faith and practices, at least to the extent of making it a felony 
to use auricular confession, and throw open the convent doors, as 
has been done in some Roman Catholic sections. 

(4) This idea is from the pope and his he-virgins, who do not 
believe it; they use Masonry as a scape-goat for the activities of 



184 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Roman Catholics who desire to be progressive — who desire free- 
dom, and the pope along with his priest-agents strive to keep 
from other Catholics the fact that some are throwing off the 
galling yoke of popery and grafting superstitions and rites that 
originated in the Dark Ages; for if they believed Masonry to be 
powerful enough in Catholic countries, where they are few in 
number, to overthrow popery, they know that here in this land 
they could give the pope many sleepless months, and would not 
be proading the order to activity as such; in this the church is 
presuming upon its usually peaceable spirit. 

(5) As a member of the Baptist church and Knights of Pythias, 
and not having a lunacy commission to sit in judgment on my 
sanity, I believe I understand human nature sufficiently to know 
that when a set of people are called upon to "extirpate" another, 
there will be friction. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 2, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Regarding No. 5. 

You ought to know that a categorical proposition can not be 
established by implication, inference, analogy or any other form 
of indirection. 

Where "No" answers a question, it answers true, unless squarely 
the opposite, in exact terms of the question, can be shown. This 
rule of right reason can in no case be ignored without a sacrifice 
of truth. 

Your mistake was in not framing your question in the precise 
language of Pope Leo ; but, of course, he or any other pope never 
anywhere taught that Catholics must "obey the voice of the pope 
as BEING THE VOICE OF GOD ALMIGHTY." And I knew it. 
You tried to hit too hard. 

Apropos the detached quotations you make, they are all per- 
fectly sound in the context, like the Scripture — "And thou shalt 
be to him instead of God" — which God Himself spoke. (Ex. iv:19.) 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

Question 5 reads: "Are Roman Catholics taught to obey the 
voice of the pope as being the voice of God Almighty?" Mr. Far- 
rell answers "No." We haven't an altogether "categorical propo- 
sition" before us; but if "No" answered true, and the Opposite 
could not be established, then there would be no question to be 
determined. The word "voice" in a Scriptural sense means a com- 
mand, or precept, or person; in John x:4 we read, "The sheep 
follow Him ; for they know His voice." What is the "inference," 
"analogy," or "implication" here? That Christ is the shepherd, 
and the sheep knowing His voice, are lead by Him; at His com- 
mand they go or come ; their movements are absolutely governed 
by His VOICE. 

In Deharbe's Catechism we find the following question and 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 185 

answer : "What, then, must the Catholic Christian in general be- 
lieve? He must believe all that God has revealed and the Catholic 
church proposes to his belief, whether it be contained in the Holy 
Scripture or not." According to this "precept," a Catholic must 
believe what the church proposes, whether it is from the Bible or 
not; and who is "the Catholic church" in this connection? The 
pope. By whose commands are they governed in all things that 
pertain to faith and morals? The pope's. To whom do they sub- 
mit themselves for guidance and direction? The pope. Are they 
ever permitted to read God's Word and interpret it? No. Even 
priests swear at orination to interpret it only as "the church" 
construes it, therefore they hear no "voice" except the pope's; 
hence, they are taught to obey the voice of the pope as being the 
voice of God Almighty; the premise can not be refuted, therefore 
the logical conclusion to the question should be Yes. It will be 
observed that I did not ask if they "must," but if they are "taught" 
to obey, etc. Also, I do not find the sentence as quoted in "Ex. 
iv:19." 

The church of Rome teaches that the pope is the Vice-Gerent of 
Christ; that the pope holds the place of Him who came to save 
that which was lost; that he holds upon this earth the place of 
God Almighty: "vice-gerent" means one who has been given the 
power to act in the place of another — that after God got the world 
in good running order, He made the pope of Rome His Superin- 
tendent. As everyone knows, a superintendent is vested with all 
the rights and privileges of the owner in all matters affecting the 
policy, polity and general management of the concern; and that 
such superintendent is answerable to no one except his principal, 
and every one employed in the establishment, or those having 
dealings with the concern, must treat with the superintendent as 
if he were proprietor; being supreme in command, he has the 
right to employ and discharge; increase or decrease the output 
and the quality of the materials entering into the line of goods 
produced ; and those under him, in the course of time, completely 
lose sight of the owner — would not know him if he was passed 
on the street — which irrefutably establishes the fact that the 
employees are taught to obey the voice of the superintendent as 
being the voice of the owner. This analogy establishes the truth 
of the question at issue ; Leo says that Catholics must be submis- 
sive and obedient to the will of the pope "as to God Himself." If 
we scan a few of the "dogmas" of the popes and compare them 
with the Word of God, we will see at once that such dogmas are in 
conflict with, or are not taught in, the Bible; yet Catholics prac- 
tice and are obedient to them — they are obeying a "voice" — is it 
God's? No! Then it's the pope's, which they are taught to be- 
lieve is the voice of God. Here are a few of the "dogmas" of the 



186 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

church that Catholics MUST believe, which are unscriptural, yet 
they are following a "voice": 

1, Peter was pope twenty-five years and was in Rome; 2, Holy 
water; 3, Virgins consecrated to use of the church; 4, Marriage 
not legal without benediction of priest; 5, Use of candles; 6, Ob- 
servance of Saints' days; 7, Mass; 8, Pope as universal bishop; 
9, Image worship or adoration; 10, Priestly celibacy; 11, Praying 
with beads; 12, Real presence of Christ in the bread and wine; 
13, Penance; 14, Auricular confession; 15, Adoration or Host 
(pancake) ; 16, Right of pope to depose rulers; 17, Indulgences; 
18, Immaculate conception; 19, Purgatory; 20, Absolution; 21, 
Papal infallibility. These are only a few of the innovations estab- 
lished by the "superintendent," but they must be observed, for 
Catholics hear no other voice in regard to them than the pope's, 
and if they dissent, they will be "fired" — excommunicated. 

Now, does any one think I "tried to hit too hard" and missed? 
Mr. Farrell endeavors to escape the only conclusion by raising 
technical questions as to the language used, instead of explaining 
HOW "No" can be a true answer. He also says this letter answers 
No. 13! (See letter of October 22.) 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 3, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You have asked that Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 be debated, 
so in the hope that you can arrange for that, I pass them. You 
are silent on No. 10; but, in objection to No. 11 say: "Your an- 
swer is not in harmony with your popes." 

(1) Without discussing whether it is or not, I will say it doesn't 
need to be on this question. As the great Irish Catholic and 
Patriot, O'Connell, once said in Parliament: "We take our reli- 
gion from Rome, but not our politics." 

(2) As to our denying the pope the right to teach what you 
cite, he may teach what seems to him good (you wouldn't deny him 
that, would you?) ; but I deny, if you wish it straight, and the 
Catholic people of America as a body would deny, were there any 
occasion, that the pope has any right to interfere with the run- 
ning of our Government according to the Constitution as it 
stands. 

(3) You say, "If he blunders in matters as important as this," 
he is like any other man. Who says otherwise? He is not divine, 
not inspired, not without sin; but he is a great and good man, 
nevertheless; may God keep him. 

(4) And when he points the way of eternal life for the Chris- 
tians of the world, like his glorious predecssor, St. Peter, to whom 
the keys of the Kingdom were given, he cannot err. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

We look upon a blackberry bush, and know that according to 
the laws of nature it will bear blackberries at the proper time; 
see that grape vine — nothing on it but leaves; look again, laden 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 187 

with grapes. We look for fruit from the vines according to the 
laws of nature governing. So, likewise, we must know the law 
by which Catholics are made and governed to know what sort of 
fruit to expect; primarily, the pope considers all members as 
"children," and they look upon the pope as their "holy" father; 
and as children under that system, they are entirely dependent 
upon the pope for spiritual food and raiment; they are his especial 
charge, to be directed and governed in all things which affect 
them and himself — and he never loses sight of himself. It is the 
nature of a child to ask ten thousand questions, some of which 
startle philosophers ; it is the natural duty of a parent not only to 
direct, control, and govern the child, but also answer its questions 
as far as he is capable, if he expects the child to develop and as- 
sume its place according to the natural order of things. In the 
home, the father inculcates the spirit of love and service one 
toward the other — that we term "religion"; he requires each one 
to strive to keep the house, yards, etc., cleared of all trash, and 
the premises kept free of all that would impair the health of 
the family in general — that we term "politics." For a child to 
say it is willing to abide by the "Religion" of the home, but will 
not be governed in the "Politics" of the institution places it in the 
category of an alien enemy. 

Par. (1) According to the above reasoning, the "great Irish 
Catholic and Patriot O'Connell," was a rebel against his "holy 
father," or resorted to "mental reservation." Try this assertion 
by the law which makes and governs Catholics: "We take our 
religion from Rome," said O'Connell; this is based upon the de- 
cree of the Vatican Council that established Papal Infallibility, 
the Fourth Chapter, wherein by its own terms the pope is limited 
to defining dogmas in ex cathedra utterances; O'Connell con- 
tinues: "But not our politics" (from Rome). In the Third Chap- 
ter, Vatican Council, decreed by the same pope and council as the 
Fourth Chapter, there is no limitation placed upon the pope's 
authority, requiring unconditional submission to papal discipline 
and absolute obedience to authority; it says: "If, then, any shall 
say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or 
direction, and not full and supreme power of jurisdiction . . . 
not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in 
those things which relate to the discipline and government of the 
church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses 
merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme 
power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and 
immediate, both over each and all the churches, AND OVER 
EACH AND ALL THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL— 
let him be anathema." As the physical man needs food and 
raiment, so the spiritual man: the Fourth Chapter supplies 



188 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

"spiritual" food — dogmas — for the Catholic, while the Third 
Chapter provides his "clothing." The one is as essential as the 
other; you can not accept the one and reject the other. 

Let us see if this is not substantiated by physical facts of recent 
history: in Ireland there are Catholic and Protestant Irish; as 
other subjects of Great Britain, the Protestant Irish freely re- 
sponded to the call to arms, while the Catholic Irish refused to do 
so, the hierarchy administering a pledge to about 90 per cent of 
the "faithful" to resist the English Government in prosecution of 
the war, while in the Dominion of Canada the French Catholics 
were obstructionists, and Catholics in Australia maintained the 
same spirit and attitude. This was a political question; the very 
life of the nation was at stake; where did the Irish, French- 
Canadian and Australian Romanists get their political attitude? 

I will admit, and hope it is true, that in a conflict many Cath- 
olics would be true to the Constitution and principles of this 
Government; but we are not discussing individuals, but a sys- 
tem; and as long as one adheres to a system, the presumption is 
he will support and contend for its principles, which presump- 
tion remains until he demonstrates the contrary to be true, by a 
test or withdrawal from it. 

It is the wish of the pope to make all peoples Catholic ; to this 
end, he has authority over and can command obedience from 
"ALL THE PASTORS AND THE FAITHFUL" in things 
which relate to "DISCIPLINE and GOVERNMENT" of the 
church, and as "POLITICS," or the science of government, is 
the main obstacle in the way of papalizing the world, it behooves 
papists to enter politics in the effort to make conditions favor- 
able to the will of their "holy father"; they must strive to remove 
those things which impair the health of papalism in the body 
politic, by "infusing" Romanism into all the veins of the State. 

It may not be out of place to explain what is meant by "mental 
reservation" in reference to Catholicism: "St." Liguori, Thomas 
Tamburini, Suarez, Basenbaum, Bellarmine, Emanuel Sa, San- 
chez, and many other Jesuit Fathers teach, "To swear with 
equivocation ... is not an evil; because there is a just cause 
for concealing the truth," and "a just cause" is said to be "any 
honest end in order to preserve good things for the spirit or 
useful things for the body." 

"If the conscience recoiled before a false oath, one might mur- 
der the words of the formula in pronouncing them, so as to be 
beyond all suspicion of sin; for example, instead of 'juro,' which 
signifies / swear, he may pronounce 'uro,' which signifies / burn." 

Coming from the fountain sources of popery, what is the 
spirit of popery, if not deceitf ulness ? Can a government carry 
out the will of God actuated by that spirit? Is it possible to 
know one is telling the truth, governed by such doctrine? 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 189 

The power and rights of the pope as decreed above give him 
the power to declare what a person must believe, as also the 
power to enforce acceptance of the belief, which is exemplified 
by the Bull Unam Sanctam, previously set out, that the pope 
through his priests wields the spiritual sword, and at his com- 
mand the secular sword must be drawn and used in behalf of 
the spiritual power — which is equivalent to saying that the pope 
actually rules the "spiritual world," and has direction of the 
political world. Farrell holds up O'Connell as an example of 
Catholic political independence; first, let me ask, was this se- 
cured by Catholics, or was it directly due to the influence of 
"Freemasonry" and "Protestantism"? Second, if not, then the 
Catholics are as cakes "unturned" — half baked — a mixture of 
two systems — a cross between Romanism and Protestantism, in 
which case O'Connell and others like him are as guilty in the 
eyes of the church as Luther, Huss, Wycliffe, Calvin, and others 
who demanded spiritual independence — that is, freedom of con- 
science, as O'Connell demanded political freedom. But let us 
hear an eminent authority: Cardinal Newman, speaking in the 
name of the pope, said, "I acknowledge no civil power; I am the 
subject of no prince; and I claim more than this. I claim to be 
the supreme judge of the consciences of men. Of the peasants 
that till the fields, and of the prince that sits upon the throne; 
of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the 
legislator that makes laws. I am sole, last, superior judge of 
what is right and wrong. Moreover, we declare, affirm, define 
and pronounce it to be necessary to salvation to every creature to 
be subject to the Roman Pontiff." 

What an Irish Catholic may say in the English Parliament is 
one thing — what they do in practice when tested is different. 
Let us now look at the "Irish" Catholics in action in America: 
in the Tablet, R. C, of Brooklyn, N. Y., Jan. 23, 1915, we read: 

"One of Brooklyn's Congressmen, Hon. John J. Fitzgerald, 
spurred to action by the repeated demands of the members of 
the Brooklyn diocesan branch of the American Federation of 
Catholic Societies, has introduced in the House of Representa- 
tives a bill to amend the Postal Laws, H. R. 20644. If this bill 
is reported favorably and passes both Houses . . . publications 
attacking the church . . . will be denied the privilege" (of the 
U. S. mails). In both the Sixty-third and Sixty-fourth Con- 
gresses five different bills were presented by Romanists to de- 
stroy the most fundamental guarantee of the Constitution: 
freedom of the press — a principle as vital to the life our Re- 
public and the perpetuation of the Constitution itself as air is 
to the human system. The Gallivan and Fitzgerald bills show 
political Rome in action; "the Catholic people of America as a 



190 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

body" were demanding this "right to interfere with the run- 
ning of our Government according to the Constitution as it 
stands." 

(2) Oh, no! I would not deny the pope the right to "teach 
what seems to him good," provided he does not attempt to pre- 
vent me from combating with free inquiry and the press "what 
seems to me bad." The City Council of Detroit, Mich., passed 
an ordinance on June 19, 1918, at the instigation of Roman 
priests and Knights of Columbus (representing the Federated 
Catholic people of America as a body), prohibiting the sale of 
periodicals on the streets that reflected on any one's religion; 
this was an act under the science of government — politics; 
where did they get their inspiration — from Rome, or "the Con- 
stitution as it stands"? From ROME, of course! And where 
did Rome get it? From the pope. Where did he get that prin- 
ciple? From the Index, established in the pitch blackness of 
Rome's noonday, when she was in control of the governments of 
the world. Incidents of a similar nature have occurred all over 
the country during the past few years, which does not dove-tail 
with what Farrell says the Catholic people of America would do. 
"By their fruits ye shall know them." 

Mr. Farrell said "the Catholic people would deny — ." In the 
"Manual of Christian Doctrine," issued according to the RULES 
of the Index, we find the following question and answer: "16. 
Ought a government to take part in public worship?" Answer: 
"Yes . . ." p. 239. Let him who can reconcile Farrell and this 
school book used by Catholics "as a body"! 

(3) If Catholics believe the pope is no better than any other 
man, then it seems to me it is a case of "the blind leading the 
blind," which is contrary to human wisdom derived from expe- 
rience, reason by which we are to be governed, and the laws of 
God, which declare, "I am the Way." 

(4) A shepherd does not "POINT," but LEADS in the 
"WAY"; the pope "pointed" the way from the sixth to fifteenth 
century — and the world went through a period of Egyptian-like 
darkness that has never vanished; the pope points the way in 
many countries to-day; Poland, where Jews are suffering as 
much at the hands of Romanists as the Armenians under the 
Turks; in Cuba, in Spain, in Mexico, in Portugal, in the Philip- 
pines, in Ireland, and elsewhere. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 5, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Regarding answer to No. 12. 

You say your comments on Answer 11 apply to this with 
equal force, so my criticism nullifying your comments apply 
here with equal truth. 

(1) You say as answering for the Catholics of Georgia, you 
question the truth of my answer. Who is representing the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 191 

Catholics of Georgia, you or I? Had you conferred with one, 
just one Catholic in Georgia who told you my answer was con- 
trary to his views? If so, name him. If not, your stricture is 
purely gratuitous. 

(2) One is reminded of the Village Schoolmaster, "who was 
so skilled, that e'en though beaten, he could argue still." You 
get an answer that is not open to honest objection; but you 
WON'T be satisfied, so you chase out imaginary "Concordat" or 
some indefinable "Intention" or that ubiquitous, wet-blanket 
affair you have made of the "Index," and move them about like 
pawns, just as if you hadn't been checkmated. 

(3) My dear man, won't you ever put down that shield of sus- 
picion, and give your mind a chance? 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell. 

COMMENT 

(1) I endeavored to get the views of TWO rather prominent 
Georgia Catholics — the Hon. Gus Daly and Mr. A. J. Long; 
they had no permit from their bishop, therefore could not an- 
swer any one of the questions, nor would they violate the rules 
of the Index or its "Intention" by attempting to answer; how- 
ever, I put one question to three of his superiors — and one is a 
"Georgia" Catholic — on baptism, which caused the Association 
to cover many pages of paper in efforts to remove the kinks, 
without success. 

To tell the truth, I do not know who is representing the Cath- 
olics of Georgia, under the nom de plume of "J. J. Farrell." If 
Farrell could point to "JUST ONE" instance in all the long 
history of Romanism where the church has taught and decreed 
according to his answer, then it would be true ; but he can't do it. 

The great World War was instigated by the Pope of Rome 
and Crown Prince Ferdinand of Austria signing a Concordat, 
which covered civilization with a blanket wet in human blood. 

The basic principle of Romanism is, that no private persons 
can read or interpret Holy Scripture or religious questions; that 
the subjects of the church must obediently submit, not only in 
matters which pertain to faith and morals, but are bound "both 
individually and collectively" in those that pertain to discipline 
and government; this is the law; did Farrell answer by refer- 
ring to the law, or from his imagination? He can not "laugh 
this case out of court." 

Claiming to possess all truth, and as truth is intolerant of 
error, intolerance is the chief cornerstone of the papacy; the 
Catechism prevents one from maintaining "silence" in the face 
of heresy else he becomes guilty himself; the law forbids him 
to become heretical — the inevitable result is, he must strive to 
destroy error or he is guilty of error; to say the Roman church 
is not intolerant is to admit an ignorance so dense it can be cut 



192 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

with a dull knife ! And if a Catholic is "tolerant," he is march- 
ing under the wrong banner. 

(3) In his letter of October 23, 1917, Mr. Farrell admits that 
all decrees of the church are binding upon Catholics until they 
are repealed — that is, "as long as they are in force," and a law 
is in force until the creating power revokes it; therefore, if I 
am holding up a "shield of suspicion," how can I afford to drop 
it until the pope revokes those Catholic-guiding decrees of in- 
tolerance, and the murderous doctrines of the "holy" fathers? 
Can a man drop a bullet-proof shield as long as he is "covered" 
by a gun — what chance has the mind to be free of suspicion 
when papalism holds before the mind's eye Inquisitions and 
Massacres and laws which sanction these things? 

Next to the pope and his general councils in making authori- 
tative, binding declarations, is the Apostolic Delegate of the 
pope. In a letter to Thomas Carey, of Palestine," Texas, June 
10, 1912, Archbishop Bonzano, the papal delegate to Washing- 
ton, D. C, answered the following question: "Must I as a 
Catholic surrender my political freedom to the church? . . . By 
this I mean the right to vote for the Democrat, Socialist, or Re- 
publican party when and where I please?" The delegate replied: 
"You should submit to the decisions of the church, even at the 
cost of sacrificing political principles." 

Here is what Catholics are taught in their schools: 

Qu. "34. How should citizens exercise their political rights?" 
Ans. ". . . they should, in their choice of candidates ... be 
governed only by the best interests of country and religion. To 
. . . vote . . . for those who are friendly to religion, or at least 
not hostile to it." p. 274, "Manual of Christian Doctrine." ("Re- 
ligon" here means Roman Catholicism.) 

In The Catholic Educator, published in 1902 by John G. Shea, 
LL. D., New York, and endorsed as true papalism by Augustine, 
Bishop of New York, is found a defense of the law of Romanism 
establishing and operating the Inquisition. It says: 

"In no age of Christianity has the church had any doubt that 
in her hands, and only in hers, was the deposit of the true faith 
and religion placed by Jesus Christ, and that, as it is her duty to 
teach all nations, so she is bound by all practicable and lawful 
means to restrain the malice of those who would corrupt the 
message or resist the TEACHER (POPE). . . . The power of 
the church, according to Fleury, is 'purely spiritual.' ... The 
overwhelming majority of the canonists take the opposite view 
— namely, that the church can and ought to visit with fitting 
punishment the heretic and the revolter ; and since the publication 
of the numerous encyclical letters and allocutions of the late 
pope treating of the relation between Church and State, and 
the inherent rights of the former, the view of Fleury can no 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 193 

longer be held by any Catholic." (This also corroborates my 
position as shown under Question 13, that the papal Italian in- 
stitution is a standing menace to any government not Catholic.) 

A person can not remain a member of an institution holding 
fundamentally, as an "inherent right," such doctrine in this 
twentieth century and be entitled to the protection of the laws 
for such institution, or worthy to be "trusted" with the rights of 
American citizenship. 

(I am sure "The Village Schoolmaster" was not a Romanist 
arguing with a priest I) 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 6, 1917. 

Dear Sir: (1) Your objections under No. 14 remind me of 
the advice of Samuel Johnson, when he said, "Endeavor to clear 
your mind of cant," and, you know, "cant," according to Carlyle, 
is "a double distilled lie; the second power of a lie." 

(2) This in reference to your statement that "Ferrer was shot 
a few years ago for advocating free progressive school system 
for Spain." Because Francisco Ferrer, professional agitator, 
atheist, anarchist, was shot for inciting riot, in Barcelona in the 
latter days of August, 1910. His character, principles and aim 
may be judged by the following excerpts from his writings. 

(3) First, from his book entitled "Patriotism y Colonezacion," 
where he says, "Don't get excited about the flag, it is only three 
yards of cotton stuck on the end of a pole" (p. 15). And again, 
"Property has been established by spoliation, cunning, trickery, 
rapidity and deception, under the name of commerce and indus- 
try" (p. 240). And again, "The words country, flag, family 
arouse in me no more than hypothetical echoes of wind and 
sound" (p. 180). 

Second, from his book, "Historia de Espana," where he says 
"Government, usurpation, tyranny — a question of words; not 
only all government, more or less legitimate, but all power is 
tyranny" (p. 121). Finally, in his "Compendio de Historia 
Universal," where he speaks derisively of Jesus Christ as one 
"devoid of filial sentiment, and let's pass no opportunity to insult 
his mother" (p. 43). 

(4) A man with such principles, inspired by such a sentiment 
as these words from his own pen show, is a criminal at heart, 
and having incited a mob to riot, being tried and condemned in 
manner and form prescribed by law, is a criminal in fact, and 
it is pure cant, cant raised to the 'nth power, to play him up as 
a martyr of progressive thought. 

Very truly yours, 
JJF/MC J- J- Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) I agree with Carlyle and Mr. Farrell: because my objection 
to his Answer 14 is based upon statements of two recent popes. 
It is characteristic of Roman priests or near-priests to hide 
behind their petticoats and yell "Liar! Liar!" whenever they 
are confronted with derogatory facts pertaining to their religion 



194 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

which they "can't" answer in the presence of an intelligent 
audience. 

The reference to Ferrer is purely incidental; however, will 
not "pass" Farrell on that; but before taking it up for consid- 
ration will present additional "cant" here as Question 14 is in 
regard to education. 

I have charged elsewhere that one means of destroying the 
principles of this free Republic, Rome was concentrating upon 
getting control of education — either destroy public schools or 
convert them into parochial schools by filling them with Catholic 
teachers. 

From Harper's Weekly, New York, November 11, 1871, we 
can see how Rome began long ago her war on the free public 
schools, which I will supplement with statistical facts; said 
Harper's: "Emigrants to our own country will find renewed 
the struggle which has ended so prosperously in Europe. 
Baffled in Italy, the papal faction is still powerful in America. 
It rules New York. ... Its agents are active in every election; 
it aims its chief blows against popular education ... it is still 
in doubt whether that wide system of instruction which has 
flourished so signally from ocean to ocean may not sink amidst 
the strife of factions, or live wounded and decaying. . . . The 
ruin of the common school system has become the secret or open 
aim of every adherent of popery." 

From statistics prepared in 1915 — forty-five years after that 
statement — we find the papal power increased in politics to this 
extent: In thirty-one States, the Democratic Central Commit- 
tees are Catholic; Republicans twenty- three ; President and 
Secretary of National Democratic Committee, Catholic; Presi- 
dent Wilson's Campaign Manager, Catholic; his private Secre- 
tary, Catholic; 70 per cent, of his appointments Catholic; ten 
States under Catholic administration; in 20,000 public schools, 
one-half of the teachers are Catholics; over 100,000 public 
schools have a large per cent, of Catholic teachers; 600 public 
schools use Catholic readers (school books) and teach the Cate- 
chism; New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, 
Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo and St. Louis employ 75 per cent. 
Catholic teachers in public schools, while Detroit has 65 per cent. 
— yet those cities do not have over 20 to 35 per cent. Catholic 
population. In all the cities and towns of over 10,000 inhabi- 
tants, Roman Catholics form 80 per cent, of the police and fire 
departments, and are in the majority in 15,000 councils of towns 
and cities of this country. 

In a little book entitled, "The Catholic Church and Modern 
Christianity," Rev. B. J. Otten, Jesuit, Professor of Philosophy in 
the St. Louis University, lays down a clear rule by which every 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 195 

school teacher is guided. On page 180 he says, "They teach and 
must teach such branches as history, literature, and the natural 
sciences, and in these THE RELIGIOUS BIAS of the teacher 
will manifest itself in spite of his best intention. . . The teacher 
who takes his or her profession seriously can NEVER be con- 
tent with the mechanical teaching of the 'three R's,' but will 
SOMEHOW blend them with the fourth, 'Religion,' and while 
no text-book of dogma are in his or her hands, will so teach . ." 
(He clearly substaniates my charge as to why Rome permits 
her grown-up "children" to teach in those schools that she terms 
"godless" and "sinks of pollution," which Catholic children can 
not attend except for such reasons as may satisfy the bishop, 
who will give permission to attend.) 

(2) To advocate Liberalism (or progressive schools) in Spain, 
as Ferrer did, means certain death, on some sort of pretext. If 
the papal church will teach the following doctrine in Catholic 
schools IN AMERICA TO-DAY, against the laws of the land 
and in the very face of overwhelming Protestant sentiment, we 
can imagine the fate of one who opposes such teaching in an 
ALL-CATHOLIC country; here's what the pope is teaching in 
our country: 

Qu. "122. May the State separate itself from the Church?" 

Ans. "No, because it may not withdraw from the supreme rule 
of Christ. 

"123. What name is given to the doctrine that the State has 
neither the right nor the duty to be united to the church . . .? 

"It is called Liberalism. It is founded principally on the fact 
that modern society rests on Liberty of Conscience and of Wor- 
ship, on Liberty of Speech and of the Press. 

"124. Why is Liberalism to be condemned? 

"1. Because it denies all subordination of the State to the 
Church; 2. Because it confounds liberty with right . . ." p. 123 
"Manual of Christian Doctrine," a book American "village" 
schoolmasters never use, but essential to the life of papa's school- 
master priests ! 

As you read the following also from the pen of Jesuit Otten 
(pp. 183-4) keep in mind the number of Catholic teachers in 
public schools: "Wherever our pupils, whether from parochial 
schools, or academies or colleges, have had an opportunity to com- 
pete with those of corresponding institutions of the State, they 
have INVARIABLY shown to advantage. Listen, ... do these 
parochial schools turn out better educated children than those 
from the public schools? Last summer, while 75 per cent, of the 
graduates of the parochial schools who presented themselves for 
examination for entrance into the normal college were admitted 
(and many with honors), ONLY 25 PER CENT. OF THE 
GRADUATES OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS WERE SUCCESSFUL. 
This summer the Catholic percentage was higher. Similar re- 



196 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

ports come from Chicago, Pittsburgh, and other cities, where the 
matter has been publicly investigated. 

Here we have the unvarnished fact from the pen of a Catholic 
University professor, that where there are 75 per cent. Roman 
Catholic teachers in the public schools, AND ON THE EXAM- 
INING BOARDS, the pupils are just SEVENTY-FIVE PER 
CENT. DEFICIENT, as compared with pupils educated by the 
same kind of teachers, but IN their schools — the rival of the pub- 
lic schools. 

American Citizens! Must you, like the little dog, have your 
brains knocked out before you can get your eyes open? Can't you 
see that Rome is getting her teachers in the public schools for one 
purpose — to destroy its efficiency while teaching, imperceptibly, 
the fourth "R" — that they are put there by the commander of the 
papal army? 

No one should be permitted to teach or be a member of the 
public school board except those who receive their training in the 
public school, and possess a certificate to that effect. It is said 
that a president of the Chicago public school board was a Roman- 
ist, who sent his children to the papal school. 

The hatred of the Roman Catholic church is voiced by the hier- 
archy — hear them "praise" the public school system, that has 
made America the greatest nation in the world : 

"Let the public school system go to where it came from — the 
devil." — Freeman's (Cath.) Journal, Nov. 20, 1869. 

Cardinal Gibbons is impressed thus with the public school sys- 
tem: "An imperfect and vicious system of education which un-. 
dermines the religion of youth." 

"The common schools of this country are sinks of moral pollu- 
tion and nurseries of hell." — The Chicago (Cath.) Tablet. 

"Education outside the Catholic church is a damnable heresy." 
—Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, Props. 45, 46, 47, 48. 

"It will be a glorious day in this country when, under the laws, 
the school system will be shivered to pieces." — Catholic TeUgraph. 
(How can it be shivered to pieces by law unless we put Catholics 
where they can make or administer the law?) 

"We must take part in the elections, move in solid mass in 
every State against the (political) party pledged to sustain the 
integrity of the public schools."— Card. McClosky. 

"The day is not far distant when Catholics, at the order of the 
pope, will refuse to pay the school tax and will send bullets into 
the hearts of the officers who attempt to collect them." — Mgr. 
Cappell. 

"Education must be controlled by Catholic authorities .... 
even to war and bloodshed." — Priest Hecker in Catholic World, 
1870. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 197 

"The children of public schools turn out to be horse thieves, 
scholastic counterfeiters and well versed in schemes of deviltry." 
—Priest Phelan, St. Louis, 1873. 

"The American Federation of Catholic Societies has been or- 
ganized to bring the powerful influence of the entire Catholic 
church in America against the injustice of the public school sys- 
tem." — Bishop McPhaul in an address before the society in Mil- 
waukee. (Mr. Farrell admits that the Catholics of Georgia are 
affiliated with that society — but a little thing as that should not 
stand in the way of us having peace!) 

Many pages could be filled with documentary evidence showing 
that the pope is a deadly enemy of popular education and the free 
school system — a system that was provided for by many States as 
soon as they became States, by setting aside large tracts of land 
for the erection or maintenance of public schools as the only 
means of perpetuating government by the people — there were but 
few Catholics in America at that time; and those knew what they 
ran away from in Europe, and acted very much like free people; 
they didn't have a sufficient number of people and priests then to 
oppose the principles of the early pioneers, as they are doing now. 

With the above information before us, we can better under- 
stand the Ferrer case, with but one other reference by which to 
judge the real truth of a proposition when presented by a Roman 
Catholic : 

In an address before the Society for the Preservation of the 
Faith, in Rome, Italy, November, 1915, the present pope, Bene- 
dict XV, paid his respects to the Protestant ministers from 
America, saying: 

"What is it that these emissaries of satan do who, in the midst 
of the Holy City, raise temples within which the true worship is 
denied to God, who establish pestilential chairs for the spread of 
error in the midst of the people, and who, with free hands, scatter 
broadcast lies and calumnies against the Catholic religion and its 
ministers? These diabolical arts are so many assaults against the 
children of Rome. . . . The conspiracy of these thieves should be 
destroyed." (In Protestant communities, priests refer to us as 
"separated" brothers; in papal communities, "Emissaries of 
satan." 

Now for the Ferrer case (Par. 2) : Ferrer was a native Span- 
iard. When about 20 years old, he took part in a revolutionary 
movement led by General Villacampa; fled to Paris, where he 
made a living teaching Spanish. He gave much time to reading 
and study along progressive lines, by which his social and politi- 
cal views were materially changed ; realizing that a sound educa- 
tional system on non-Catholic lines, as in America, held the hope 
of the future, and loving his country, he desired to see her liber- 
ated from the long night of priestly domination under which she 



198 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

had slept for centuries; he wanted her to keep step with advanc- 
ing civilization — which could be possible only through the light of 
liberal education. 

He returned to Barcelona, near the place of his birth, and estab- 
lished the Modern School. Any one can imagine the frocity of 
papal prists, who dread nothing so much as liberating human 
reason through freedom of thought, conscience, inquiry, speech, 
press and assembly. Consider Benedict's screed against the Pro- 
testant preachers now in Rome, nearly fifty years after the 
Italian Government drove the pope out of civil affairs and per- 
mitted other churches to exist in Rome — now think of Ferrer in 
a community where the pope is supreme, establishing a free 
school ! 

The world at large believes he was shot on trumped up charges, 
and executed October 13, 1909. (It will be recalled that in 1914 
the Christian Endeavor Society held a meeting in Spain; the Gov- 
ernment had much difficulty in preventing Catholics from massa- 
creing them.) 

(3) As to his books, they may have been written before he 
reached a broader view — in young manhood; not having these 
books, I do not know; but I can imagine that the Spanish flag, 
hanging figuratively as it does under the papal flag, does not 
mean much to one who knows history, as he evidently did — signi- 
fying a combined tyranny, the like of which may the world soon 
banish. A flag of a nation means nothing, except the principles 
over which it floats to protect; the Stars and Stripes — what was 
it more than "three yards of cotton stuck on the end of a pole" 
to those Knights of Columbus who mobbed Otis Spurgeon in Cali- 
fornia, or that mob of ten thousand Romanists who assaulted the 
city hall of Haverhill, Mass., wounding many citizens, destroying 
property — exciting a riot to prevent free speech wherein a man 
was going to make public protest against appropriating public 
funds to sectarian schools — insults to the Flag and attacks upon 
the Constitution over which it floats — and these facts were not 
even put on the wires ! And what can any flag mean to those sub- 
ject to the bishop's oath? 

As to his derision of Jesus Christ : Christ said, "Let your light 
so shine, that others seeing your good works, may be constrained 
to glorify your Heavenly Father" — what did the history of all 
Europe and of his own country under the papal yoke tell him of 
Jesus Christ — what did he see in the "light" of papalism? Noth- 
ing but tyranny, bloodshed, murder, ignorance and superstition. 
Some of the blackest of all the black pages of history had the 
name of his country on them — written there in crimson letters of 
blood drawn from human veins to satiate him who said he was 
"Christ veiled in the flesh!" the diabolical instruments of torture 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 199 

invented by the so-called followers of Christ, the pope's priests, 
to break human bones, to dissever the body, limb by limb, to pluck 
out eyes, the very reading of which makes the blood course faster 
and the fists to double hard as lightwood knots while the brain 
almost reels with fury — all these crimes by devils in robes as 
"rays of light" to draw men unto God through Christ; priests 
before whom the people must bow or have their quivering hearts 
torn out, bone after bone broken until the victim died from sheer 
exhaustion; or placed in a dungeon, isolated from mankind and 
cut off from God's sunshine if they refused to pray to "Mary, the 
Mother of God." 

I will say right here that God's command is,"Thou shalt have no 
other gods before Me— thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, 
nor serve them," and every time a soul supplicates any person 
outside of the Trinity, it is committing spiritual adultery, or for- 
nication, which is an abomination to the Lord. 

(4) Where a man has a religion which permits him to use 
mental reservation or evasion of mind, when he speaks, swears or 
writes, what he says must not be taken too seriously; no doubt 
Benedict XV, if he had the power, would take pleasure in having 
those Baptist, Methodist and other Protestant preachers in Rome 
shot, as "St." Thomas Aquinas teaches, because they are counter- 
feiters of the true faith, and as he, Benedict, says, "These thieves 
should be destroyed." 

If Ferrer was a "criminal at heart" and deserved to be shot 
because he was not in love with the flag and what it protected, 
what is to be said of the Irish Catholics who riot against the Flag 
of England, one or more of these Irish "martyrs" having been 
canonized — that is, made "Saints" by the popes? Practically all 
said against Francisco Ferrer by Farrell applies with equal 
weight against the papists of the world, and does not help his case 
at all. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 7, 1917. 

Dear Sir: (1) Referring again to your objection under Num- 
ber 14, and still having Dr. Johnson and Carlyle in mind. 

(2) You say, "A Concordat MUST provide for church control 
of education." To persuade you to the contrary, I cite the follow- 
ing Concordats which make no mention of education: That with 
Prussia concluded in 1821; that of the Upper Rhine Provinces 
concluded the same year; that with Belgium concluded in 1827; 
the Concordat of Hanover between Pius VII and George IV of 
England concluded in 1824; the Concordat of Oldenburg con- 
cluded in 1830; the concordat with Austria concerning Bosnia- 
Herzegovania concluded in 1881; that with Russia concluded in 
1847; that with Switzerland concluded in 1828; that with Swit- 
zerland concluded in 1845; that with the Two Sicilies in 1834. I 
think probably there are others equally silent as to education, 
but this ought to be enough. 



200 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

(3) Am afraid you do not know very much about these things, 
my friend. Very truly, 

JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

Par. (1): I am perfectly willing, and invite, Americans to 
keep Johnson, Carlyle, Farrell, the pope, and Jesus Christ in 
mind as they read FarrelPs letters and my comments, and draw 
their own conclusions, as to what is, and who indulges in, cant, 
lies, or truth. 

(2) Two facts are proved here : first, that the pope has executed 
many concordats — Farrell omits the one which was at the bottom 
of the great war; second, verifying the claim of the popes that 
they are civil or temporal sovereigns — Romanists in America at- 
tempt to deny. 

Temporal rulers enter into treaties ; this is an attribute of tem- 
poral sovereignty. A treaty is an agreement reached by the com- 
missions from two or more governments, which must be ratified 
by the sovereign power of the government, if such power is not 
delegated to the commissioners. 

A concordat is also an agreement. Taunton's Canon Law de- 
fines concordat: "1. A concordat is an agreement which the pope 
makes with some supreme civil power. By it the church delegates 
and communicates some of her powers to the State in return for 
an acknowledgment and the free exercise of duties and rights in- 
herent in HER Constitution" 

In the concordat between Ferdinand and the pope, education 
was one of the many specified articles of the agreement; but this 
need not be specified by name, as the right to control all education 
is claimed by the church of Rome as one of u the duties and rights^ 
inherent in her Constitution." Hence, it is clear, if a civil power 
makes a treaty with the pope, unless the agreement specifically 
stipulates otherwise, but agrees to give the pope's church "the 
free exercise of duties and rights inherent in her Constitution," 
the first "inherent right" is to "teach," as the church proclaims 
all education outside of it is a damnable heresy. In his letter on 
Human Liberty, Pope Leo leaves no doubt as to what are among 
the rights of the Roman church. He says: "She is therefore the 
greatest and most reliable teacher of mankind, and in her dwells 
an inviolable right to teach them," p. 154 Gt. Lets. 

The Jesuit Professor of Philosophy in the Catholic University 
of St. Louis, Rev. B. J. Otten, says : "To understand properly the 
attitude of the Catholic church. . . . She never loses sight of the 
fact that education is in a certain sense but a continuation of the 
creative act of God, and as God created human beings, not merely 
for the enjoyment of this world, but for the endless joys of eter- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 201 

nity, so also must education be directed to the attainment of that 
same end." And what is her record? 

That Rome claims the sole right to educate where she has an 
agreement, is proved by her attitude in America to-day; she can 
not get "the favor of the civil law" to do this, so she sets up her 
own parochial schools, in which she teaches this doctrine. 

When there is a union between a man and woman by marriage, 
it is mutually understood without mention that one of the natural 
rights is to propagate the race; and where there is a concordat 
between the State and the pope, it is understood that one of the 
rights accruing to him is, to have control of education. To deny 
this, is to belie the existence of the pope's parochial schools irt 
America', to deny this "right" of that institution calling itself the 
only true church which arrogates to itself the rights of a "perfect 
society" destroys its claim as such. 

(3) I will admit that I do not know much about these things — 
but I am striving to learn. One thing is certain, however: in deny- 
ing the doctrine of baptism until in a subsequent letter the Cath- 
olic Laymen's Association learned that their "superiors" had been 
questioned and answered differently; and in denying the authen- 
ticity and import of the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Mr. Far- 
rell (?) does not seem to be so sure that he knows any more than 
THE LAW allows about "these things" — or, that the law forbids 
him to tell what he knows! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 8, 1917. 
Dear Sir: (1) You say Mr. Taft reported over 1,000 priests in 
the Philippines and not over 6,000 "educated" people. Inasmuch 
as there are some 6,000 islands in the Philippines, with about 
7,000,000 souls inhabiting them, it strikes me as rather remark- 
able that there were 6,000 "educated" people. 

(2) For "educated" people are not so plentiful under the most 
favorable conditions, as you no doubt, being one of them, ought to 
be aware. As to "educating" a dog, cat, flea, etc., you are welcome 
to all the comfort that thought or that practice brings to you. 

(3) Regarding the illiteracy of Spain, the official educational 
report of 1908, "La Estandistica Escolar de Espana," gives the 
percentage as 28 instead of 65, which you name. By the school 
census of 1903 there were in Spain 31,838 schools with a total of 
pupils between the ages of 5 and 15 years, of 4,896,927; which in 
a population of 18,618,086 is not a bad showing. 

Compare it to our 19,000,000 school children in a population of 
over 102,000,000 and there seems to be no less educational activity 
in Spain than among ourselves. Of course, if you go back far 
enough you can find when we had 65 per cent, illiterate. 

You will note that I cite you nothing but official documents and 
I hope you will appreciate the fact. 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 



202 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

comment 

(1) Having denied almost every other fact, though demon- 
strable, I am a little surprised that he did not deny the subject- 
matter and findings of the Taft Commission as being "cant" as 
per Johnson and Carlyle. 

As the Roman church declares she alone has the right to teach 
— that is, educate — "draw out," "develop" the God-given powers 
of the mind, it certainly is "rather remarkable that there were 
6,000 educated people" on those islands containing 7,000,000 souls, 
with 1,000 priests: 6,000 among 7,000,000 is less than ONJE to the 
THOUSAND inhabitants! This is pure, unadulterated Roman- 
ism in action where it is not surrounded by Protestantism. In 
Protestant countries, Rome must show some marks of trying to 
keep step with progress — to see what a beast really is when not 
under restraint, observe it in its native surroundings; to learn 
how popery discharges its obligations in the matter of education, 
note results in her native element, that is, where there is no op- 
position ! The priest ruled in all matters in the islands ; one wit- 
ness said the people were practicaly all "fanatical Catholics" — 
1,000 priests could make them fanatically Catholic, but nothing 
else. (Have those ignorant people a "Layman's Hand-Book," to 
keep the priest from having to ask them questions?) 

God created the human body and gave it a mind. It is the duty 
of parents to take such precautionary measures as will assure the 
child given into their keeping a healthy body and a strong mind. 
To follow any course which would dwarf the body or impair the 
mind would be a crime against the child and its Creator and con- 
demn the parents as brutes unfit to rear children — this natural 
law applies to Rome in regard to education. She says God com- 
mitted the welfare of the human race into her hands — intellect 
and all ; we see how she discharged the self-imposed obligation in 
those islands, where she was without opposition since the fifteenth 
century ! Less than one to the thousand — and many of those went 
elsewhere for their education — though she has an "inviolable" 
right to teach ! 

(2) The fact that dogs, cats, etc., can be "educated" affords 
certain comfort, proving that all of God's creatures can be devel- 
oped to a high state of perfection in accordance with their natures 
and the purposes of their creation, and it proves that any nation 
existing under the bondage of ignorance and superstition is a vic- 
tim of circumstances at times rather than a mental defect as a 
people. 

(3) I am glad to note the percentage has been reduced in recent 
years; however, Rome can not claim the credit. For centuries 
Spain has been a decadent nation, but of recent years the "Lib- 
erals" have increased, who desire to pull her out of the rut; and 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 203 

like one who realizes that if he does not make some effort at self- 
preservation under certain circumstances, he is doomed, it seems 
that education is being recognized as necessary if Spain hopes to 
keep in speaking distance with the other nations of the earth. 
But think! For a thousand years education in Spain has been 
dominated continuously by Rome, yet her last and best showing 
in this glorious age is twenty-eight out of every hundred can not 
read or write. 

Verily, a tree is known by its fruit. 

It is indeed refreshing to note that Mr. Farrell here quotes 
figures, and one time cites official authority to substantiate an 
incidental proposition; I asked him to do this in answering all of 
the thirty-two questions — but he wouldn't — because he couldn't! 

The Bureau of the Census, 1910, shows Spain to be 58.7 per 
cent, illiterate, America 7.7! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 9, 1917. 
Dear Sir: (1) Your objections under No. 15 appear to be due 
to a confusion in the mind of the real claim of the pope to tem- 
poral sovereignty over the papal States and the alleged claim 
wrongfully attributed to him to universal temporal sovereignty. 

(2) You know the grandfather of Charlemagne ceded to the 
pope certain territory in what is now Italy and some time later 
the papacy purchased from the Countess of Tuscany a certain 
additional territory and these two became what is known as the 
Papal States over which the pope until toward the close of the 
last century was considered by the whole world to be rightfully 
the temporal sovereign. 

(3) The Papal States comprised about 18,000 square miles 
which included the City of Rome. The present Italian Govern- 
ment took this from the pope by force and the pope still claims 
that he is rightfully the temporal ruler over this territory. The 
present Italian Government recognized this claim to the extent of 
voting the pope an annuity of 15,000,000 lire as indemnity for 
having deprived him of his patrimony. This sum has been set 
apart every year since 1870, but the pope has consistently refused 
it, claiming his temporal sovereignty instead. 

(4) Now this question as to whether the pope is entitled to 
sovereignty over the Papal States has no practical interest for 
Catholics outside of Italy; and, in deed, the Catholics of Italy 
seem very little concerned about it. And if you will separate this 
claim of the pope, which he really does make, from the claim that 
he does not make, but is attributed to him, of wishing to be uni- 
versal temporal ruler, you will avoid many pitfalls in your inves- 
tigation of the political bearing of different papal utterances. 

Very truly yours, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 



204 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

comment 
That the pope claims universal temporal sovereignty can be 
established, I believe, from carefully considering the question on 
the following bases: 

a. Was the pope ever a temporal sovereign in fact? 

b. Did a pope at any time crown a temporal ruler? 

c. Did any pope at any time ever declare a temporal ruler had 
forfeited his crown? 

d. Has any pope ever dethroned a ruler and given the crown to 
another? 

e. Did any pope ever receive his crown from a temporal ruler? 

f. Does the pope claim to be God's instrument, substitute, 
superintendent, or vice-gerent upon earth? 

g. Does the pope consider members of his church as "subjects"? 
h. Are such subjects restricted to any particular state, terri- 
tory, country, or continent? 

i. Does the pope expect his subjects, in any land, to aid him in 
establishing his "religion" to the exclusion of others? 

j. Has a pope ever asserted the claim to universal temporal 
supremacy? 

All these questions may be reduced to two propositions : 

I. Has any pope ever exercised temporal sovereignty over any 
people? And 

II. Does the pope exercise a spiritual sovereignty over any one 
person? 

The answers to these propositions determinte the issue under 
discussion. Let us see, now: 

(a) The Supreme Court of the United States, in 1908, said: 
"At one time the United States maintained diplomatic relations 
with the Papal States, which continued up to the time of the loss 
of the temporal power of the papacy" (in 1870), 210 U. S. loc cit. 
318, 28 Sup. Ct. 737; Farrell also admits the pope was temporal 
sovereign over certain States. Now, if it was in the general 
scheme of Redemption that the pope should be sovereign over 
ONE State, presumably for the good of that State or for the in- 
terest of the church, then no restriction can be placed upon the 
extent of his principality, as he must, as God's substitute, sustain 
the same relation to all men on earth as he maintains to any ONE 
or any section. 

Competent authorities on International Law establish the fact: 
Says one, "As head of the Catholic church, the pope exercised 
powers and possessed attributes absolutely unprecedented. His 
authority transcended the material boundaries of the States and 
extended throughout the entire world, in the East as well as in 
the West, in Asia, in Africa, as well as in Europe and in America, 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 205 

everywhere that there was a Catholic community. "Droii Inter- 
national Public, Paris, 1914. 

"Innocent III freely exercised the privilege of creating as well 
as deposing kings." — Hosack on Law of Nations. 

(b) King Henry of Germany surrendered his crown to Pope 
Gregory VII with all humility and degradation; Pepin, Emperor 
of France, was crowned by the pope, Celestine III. 

(c) Instances too numerous to mention throughout the ages. 

(d) Yes. 

(e) Yes, from about the sixth to eighth century. 

(f) This is the foundation of the pope's church; Leo XIII said, 
"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty." 

(g) Yes; Leo refers to Catholics as "subjects" of the church, 
(h) All Catholics are bound to the pope through the decree of 

Infallibility and that of Universal Obedience, hence they are sub- 
jects in whatsoever he commands, in all lands. 

(i) Declaring he has been intrusted with the custody of all 
truth, and truth being intolerant of error, it is the duty of papal 
subjects throughout the world to strive to render papalism su- 
preme. 

(j) To Philip King of France, Pope Innocent III wrote: "To 
princes power is given on earth . . . but Peter, as in the plenti- 
tude, so in the extent of his power, is pre-eminent over all, since 
he is vicar of Him whose is the earth and the fullness thereof, 
the whole wide world, and all that dwell therein," while the Bull 
Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII declares that "every human 
creature is subject to the Roman Pontiff." 

I. From the time of Pepin in the eighth century to 1870, the 
popes were civil sovereigns over certain Papal States. On this 
nucleus the church hoped to build a world-wide temporal sover- 
eignty; from Emperor Phocas Pope Boniface III received the title 
of Universal Bishop, or "Pope," which was cemented by the use of 
false decretals establishing permanently the supremacy of the 
pope in the church; so, in like manner, the grant of what is 
known as the Papal States was to be the base of universal tem- 
poral supremacy. 

II. Every cardinal, legate, archbishop, bishop, priest and lay- 
man of the Catholic church take some sort of oath of subjection 
to the pope, who directs what they shall or shall not believe, and 
what they must do or refrain from doing, to gain his "spiritual" 
blessing in life, death and eternity. 

Remember that the pope is the church; now listen to Leo XIII: 
"Both the will of God and the common weal of society impera- 
tively require that the civil power should be in accord with the 
ecclesiastical in its rule and administration ... it is necessary 
that each should be united in the bonds of accord. . . . Let us 



206 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

ONE and ALL, then, for the sake of the common welfare, labor 
with equal assiduity to restore the ancient concord." Gt. Lets. 
pp. 313-14-18. 

Would any one contend that Leo was speaking for and in rela- 
tion to the several small papal "states"? If so, Leo himself dis- 
abuses the opinion ; says he : "The mission of Christ is to save that 
which had perished ; that is to say, not SOME nations or peoples, 
BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE. . . . Wherefore ... it is 
necessary that this church should be one in all lands and at all 
times. . . . That the one church should embrace all men every- 
where and at all times," p. 356 Ibid. 

Thus, in writing to Catholics around the whole world, Leo 
makes it plain that the pope is supreme sovereign over every foot 
of earth inhabitd by man — extending as far in fact as God's rights 
among men, which doctrine is taught in papal schools. 

Wherever the church of Rome is established in any land its 
"rights" are demanded as soon as there are enough subjects to 
make the demand. The first thing the church begins to do, is, to 
define her position; to remove doubt, Leo cites the Syllabus of 
Errors of Pius IX, who branded "publicly many false opinions'* 
which were gaining ground; one of which reads: "Prop. xix. The 
Church is not a true, perfect, and wholly independent society, 
possessing its own unchanging rights conferred upon it by its 
Divine Founder; but it is for the civil power to determine what 
are the rights of the church, and the limits within which it may 
use them," p. 125. 

Another opinion that was branded as false: "Prop. lv. The 
Church must be separated from the State, and the State from the 
Church." 

The "ancient concord" desired by Leo renders temporal rulers 
mere puppets of the pope, to be enthroned or dethroned at his 
pleasure; that "accord" which enabled popes to order temporal 
rulers to extirpate all heretics in their realms; that "accord" 
which would allow a bishop to enter the kingdom and butcher 
those whose conscience repudiated popery with its idols, relics, 
bleached bones, saints, etc. To those millions who weltered in 
their own blood rather than surrender free conscience, it made 
no difference whether they were murdered according to the papal 
rights set out in the Third or Fourth Chapter of the Vatican 
Decrees ! 

By what test are the subjects of the church proven? Leo XIII 
says: "Obedience to the Roman Pontiff is the proof of the true 
faith," 380. 

I do not believe there is any "confusion" in the mind of the 
reader as to the "real claim of the pope to temporal power." 

(2) It was the decision of a pope that made Pepin Emperor 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 207 

of France; he engaged in wars with the Lombards. About the 
year 754 Pepin was importuned by the pope to war on Astol- 
phus, King of the Lombards; this king, desiring to secure peace 
at any price, among other concessions, agreed to recognize the 
sovereignty of the Franks, pay them tribute, and ceded to Pepin 
the towns and lands belonging to the jurisdiction of the Roman 
Empire, which were then occupied by the Lombards, which took 
in Ravenna, Pimini, Pesaro or the Romaga, the Duchy of Urbino, 
and a part of the marches of Ancona. These being subjugated 
by the sword, Pepin deeded them to the pope — which was the be- 
ginning of the temporal sovereignty of the pope over them, known 
in history as the "Papal States." 

(3) Those who believe in Democracy, and the Bible, recognize 
that all just powers of the government are derived from the "con- 
sent of the governed.'' Having been favored by the pope, Pepin 
believed that "one good turn deserved another," so he presented 
the pope with the fruits of his conquest — and it took those people 
just one thousand years to realize they were being governed with- 
out their consent; and when they did, they cast off what Leo 
terms the "sweet yoke" of the papacy. 

As to other territory gained by purchase or grant — every school 
boy is supposed to know that the people have the right, under the 
law of Eminent Domain, to terminate or abrogate the rights of 
an individual or combination of individuals when that course is 
deemed to be for the best interests of the community, just com- 
pensation being tendered; the darkest spot throughout all the 
Dark Ages was these same Papal States when the pope was King. 

By the sword were the original Papal States won — by the sword 
were they liberated. 

(4) This is a very blatant assertion, and it would pass muster 
were it not known that the popes demand and strive for the resto- 
ration of the temporal sovereignty, as Leo says, "by the very 
nature of Our office and Our sacred promise confirmed on oath'* 
p. 15. Here is the pope, God's Superintendent ( ! ) upon earth* 
swearing before his "sacred" congregation of cardinals to strive 
to get back his temporal power (although Christ said, "May king- 
dom is not of this world") , while Farrell says that question "has 
no practical interest for Catholics outside of Italy!" The pope 
says it is necessary for him to have it, and this question contains 
the germ of a world-disaster; like Samson, when he realized his 
day was done, he may try to wreck the world, and not even 
Romanists know what infernal trickery the pope under the direc- 
tion of Jesuitism may stage, by an infallible decree calling upon 
the "faithful" of the world to rise up in his behalf and attempt 
to restore his "princedom" : the pope sent Pepin a message, which 
he said had been delivered to him by St. Peter from heaven, 



208 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

directing him to make war on the Lombards — thus the origin of 
temporal sovereignty; can the Catholic Laymen's Association of 
Georgia give valid bond that the pope will not get in touch with 
Peter and again attempt to hoax the world? 

The people of Italy are very much concerned with this matter. 
So much so, that the pope has less real influence in Rome than he 
has in New York, Chicago, or other large American centers — be- 
cause the people of Italy KNOW HIM AND HIS WORKS; his 
priests are forbidden, by Catholic-made law, to officiate at mar- 
riages unless they have first been performed by the civil authority, 
while in some of the States of Italy it is against the law to sell 
such books as Liguori's "Moral" (?) Theology. 

Cardinal Manning evidently spoke by the "cards" — he pre- 
dicted this question would bring on a world war. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 9, 1917. 

Dear Sir: You quote the Syllabus of Errors again under 15 
(rather you misquote it). 

(1) I failed to mention that you misquoted it, also, under 14; 
in fact, you invariably misquote it, as you yourself will see if you 
only take the trouble to read the Syllabus first-hand. And you 
might know by inference if you only reflect that the Syllabus of 
Errors is a collection of negations from which it is clearly bad 
logic to conclude the opposite affirmative as necessarily true and 
worse argument to quote that opposite in language that does not 
appear in the document you purpose to quote from. 

Moreover, paragraph 27, which you misquote, has no reference 
to the universal church but only to the Papal States, as you would 
know, if you had by you the allocution which this particular para- 
graph refers to. (2) As to the statement of Leo XIII where he 
says "if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with 
divine law ... to resist becomes a positive duty; to obey a 
crime," I endorse that. All Catholics endorse it. All men ought 
to endorse it. 

If that be treason — make the most of it. 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J- Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

Mr. Farrell here again charges me with misquoting the Sylla- 
bus of Errors and also denies their relevance to countries outside 
the Papal States. Claiming he holds the place of God on earth, 
the pope's jurisdiction, necessarily in all things, extends as far as 
that of his principal— God. It is needless to say more as to that 
proposition. Any intelligent person knows that if I had mis- 
quoted the Syllabus of Errors, Farrell would have set me right, 
BY QUOTING THEM. If a lawyer at the bar objects to the 
citation of his opponent, or denies the sense in which the law 
cited is used in the instant case, it is his duty not only to object, 
but he must sustain his objection by himself reading the citations 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 209 

objected to for the benefit of the court and jury: a simple denial 
does not help his case — especially when he is supposed to have 
the volumes at hand. Apply this rule to Farrell's charge. 

Farrell says "the Syllabus of Terrors is a collection of negations 
from which it is clearly bad logic to conclude the opposite affirma- 
tive as necessarily true." "Negation: Denial" — "a collection of 
denials," then, if you prefer; what do they deny? Leo says, cer- 
tain "false opinions that were gaining ground." If the premise 
is true that Pius IX branded as false certain opinions, then the 
only logical conclusion is, the opposite affirmative IS TRUE. 
Again I will cite one of the propositions as quoted by Leo XIII : 
"To like effect . . . did Pius IX brand publicly many false opin- 
ions ... it will suffice to indicate a few of them : Prop. lv. The 
Church must be separated from the State and the State from the 
Church!" Farrell says it is "bad logic" for me to say that Pius 
taught "it is error to say the Church must be separated from the 
State and the State from the Church!" and that in doing so, I am 
misquoting ! To say that it is error to hold that "The male is the 
mother of its species," and then also say it is "bad logic" to con- 
clude the opposite affirmative is necessarily true by declaring 
"The female is the mother of its species," may be good logic to 
those accustomed to accept the dictum of a priest, but is senseless, 
childish twaddle to minds free from the Papal Index. I am sur- 
prised to learn that Leo fell into the same error as myself; the 
pope should get Mr. Farrell, of the Catholic Laymen's Association 
of Georgia, to straighten out the contents of the Vatican archives. 
(I will have occasion later to refer to this Syllabus of Errors — 
and will show that one of its propositions is now written in the 
canon law of Farrell's church!) 

A Catholic acts according to papal law — it's his conscience. So, 
before discussing Farrell's deleted quotation from Leo, we will 
first consider "conscience" and what it signifies to the mind of a 
Romanist; we have previously treated of the law. 

The untutored savage would not kill more game than he could 
dispose of properly — his "conscience" forbade it; primitive in- 
stinct was his monitor. "Conscience" is that element of the 
human mind and heart by which man distinguishes good from 
evil, if it has not been "seared as with a hot iron" by some subtle 
process; it is subject to a refined state of development, or debase- 
ment. Under the Christian dispensation, God gave man His Word 
the Bible as a guide for his conscience: "The entrance of Thy 
Word giveth light" and is a guide to all truth ; we can not have a 
conscience void of offense to God and man unless it is developed 
under the influence of the Bible, as summed up in the Ten Com- 
mandments; based upon any other theory, is paganism. 

In placing himself between the Creature and its God, the pope 



210 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

diverts the human conscience from the Bible to himself and 
human "Traditions," placing the writings of man (St. Thomas 
Aquinas) on an equal footing with the Bible; hence, the Catholic 
conscience must be developed universally in accord with the will 
of a man — the pope; and if it is exercised at all, it must be in 
harmony, not with the Word of God, but with the word of the 
pope. 

Under stated conditions, a Catholic will disobey the laws of the 
land; his conscience prompts it. Let us consider a few manifesta- 
tions of Catholic conscience; it may throw some light on their 
attitude to our law, whether or not it is a safe monitor in a de- 
mocracy : 

Following the promptings of his conscience, John Wycliffe trans- 
lated the Holy Scriptures in the common tongue, for which he was 
harassed by popery; thirty years after his death, his remains 
were exhumed, by a decree issued by the Council of Constance, 
and burnt; that's Catholic conscience. 

John Huss embraced the teaching of Wycliffe by the prompt- 
ings of his conscience; he was summoned to appear before this 
same Council of Constance; he appeared, having a safe pass-port 
from the Catholic king going and coming — he trusted them. This 
council found him guilty of heresy, and the Catholic conscience 
and plighted word burnt him at the stake. 

In obedience to his conscience, the monk, Savonarola, denounced 
the wickedness and corruption of his fellow-priests; the Catholic 
conscience burnt him. 

Bruno discovered it was death to know more than the con- 
science of the pope allowed. 

The earlier Christians, known as Albigenses, Waldenses, and 
Lollards, were put to death by wholesale because their conscience 
would not permit them to subscribe to popery. 

A writer has said: "Among the hereditable or transmissible 
qualities in animals and in man, the most stubbornly persistent 
is an instinctive tendency to respond to environment." 

The real characteristics of a man, or nation, will not only be 
developed, but revealed by environment, and the inner conscience 
— or what the nation is at heart — will be manifested in actions, 
words, deeds, literature and law. 

A cannibal inherits his taste for human flesh; his environment 
fosters and develops it; this characteristic finds expression when 
opportunity brings a victim within reach. To overcome this bar- 
barism, there must be enlightenment: ''The entrance of Thy 
Word giveth light"; when the cannibal learns the true relation 
of man to man and his God, this practice that was once a joyous 
feast becomes abhorrent— but make it impossible to change en- 
vironment by keeping intellect in the dark — as by an "Index" — 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 211 

and each succeeding generation would be man-eaters to the end 
of time. 

To appreciate the conscience of a Catholic, it is necessary to 
understand somewhat of the environment into which he is born 
and raised — the nature he inherits: viewed from a religious 
standpoint, Romanism dethrones God and substitutes the pope; 
destroys the Gospel and relies upon Tradition ; fetters reason with 
the iron grip of authority, making it criminal to reason, but virtue 
to murder; all this produces a heart, mind and "conscience" that 
will hear no voice but the pope's, and hence, like clay in the 
potter's hands, can be moulded into any phantastic shape the 
enemy of man desires; if the pope declares the blackness of hell 
to be the light of heaven, the environment of the Catholic has 
been such as to force him to assent to the pope's definition. 

Now let us consider Leo's statement, and set it out in full, as 
it was intended to be construed by Catholics : 

"If the laws of the State are at variance with divine law; or, 
"If the laws of the State contain enactments hurtful to the 

church; or, 
"If the laws of the State convey injunctions adverse to the 

duties imposed by religion ; or, 
"If the laws of the State violate the authority of Christ vested 

in the pope of Rome, Catholics must not only resist such, but 

to obey these laws of the State would be a crime." 

Now, as between the State and the pope, who is to determine 
when the laws of the State violate the pope's laws? The pope. 
Who is to resist these laws of the State when the pope declares 
they violate his laws? The Roman Catholic. 

Deharbe's Catechism teaching "On Faith" says: 

"1. What is Faith as proposed by a Catholic Christian? 

"Faith is a virtue infused by God into our souls, by which we 
believe, without doubting, all those things which God has re- 
vealed, and proposes by His church to our belief. 

"7 How did Divine Revelation come down to us? 

"Divine Revelation came down to us partly by writing — that is, 
by the Holy Scripture or the Bible; partly by word of mouth — 
that is, by Tradition. 

"14. Is it enough to believe only those doctrines which are con- 
tained in the Holy Scripture? 

"No ; we must also believe Tradition. 

"17. How has Tradition been handed down to us? 

". . . by the rites of the church . . . in the decrees and defini- 
tions of the church, and in the writings of the Holy Fathers. 

"20. What, then, must the Catholic Christian in general believe? 

"He must believe all that God has revealed and the Catholic 



212 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

church (that is, THE POPE) proposes to his belief, whether it 
be contained in the Holy Scripture or not." 

Observe, that in the earliest training, the Catholic is taught to 
believe in God only as He is revealed by the pope, to believe in 
Tradition, the Decrees and Definitions of the popes, and the writ- 
ings of the "holy" fathers of the church ; all subsequent education 
is but to strengthen belief in papalism along these lines: there- 
fore, when the pope through his priests says any law is in conflict 
with the laws of God, a Catholic has no alternative but to believe 
it, and act accordingly; being the only person in the world who 
has the right to teach what is "Divine Law," naturally the pope 
is the sole judge whether or not the laws of the land conflict with 
"divine" law; now — 

The Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the sev- 
eral States of the Union, separate the State from the church; 
this is "manifestly at variance with divine law," and for a Cath- 
olic to assent to it is, to commit a crime against his church. 

Every law of every State in the Union which provides for and 
maintains the free public school in which citizens are to be 
trained to perpetuate the State is an enactment "hurtful to the 
church" of Rome, and it is the positive duty of Catholics to resist 
this law — "to obey, a crime." One manifestation of "resisting" 
this law is concretely shown by the competitive parochial school 
being formed where there are enough Romanists to make it pay. 

The laws of the land give every man the right to civil and reli- 
gious liberty — a "Free Conscience," which "convey injunctions 
adverse to the duties imposed by religion" — laws which prevent 
the pope's subjects from killing their fellow-citizens because they 
will not subscribe to Traditions and writings of the papal fathers, 
pray to Mary, worship the pancake god and eat him at the com- 
mand of the priest — "to obey" these laws is "a crime." 

The laws of the land provide penalties against liars, thieves, 
adulterers, murderers, etc., all of which "violate in the person of 
the pope the authority of Jesus Christ," which Catholics are 
taught to resist as a duty, and a crime to obey, such being an in- 
vasion of priestly precincts! 

If Romanists were numerous enough in America to put into 
effect the pope's interpretation of "divine" law, every right guar- 
anteed by the Constitution along with the free public school would 
be blotted out and the polluting doctrines of the "Holy Fathers"— 
Aquinas, Dens, Liguori, et al., would do for America what they 
have done for the Latin nations of the earth — the destruction of 
morality, justice, and truth, while rivers of blood would flow to 
satiate an insatiable monster. 

Mr. Farrel, speaking with authority for the Catholics of Geor- 
gia—and a unit of the Federated Society of Catholics — says: 
"// that be treason — make the most of it." 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 213 

Farrell and all Catholics receive their inspiration and direction 
from Rome — from the "Traditions" of the "holy" fathers — the 
product and cause of the Dark Ages — people among us, but not 
of us, who live under oath to wreck American civilization the 
instant the pope thinks it can be done with safety to himself, with 
a wrecking-crew of 20,000 priests and Jesuits to direct his "faith- 
ful," who boast of their position : "If that be treason — make the 
most of it." The American people will dispose of that issue — they 
have never yet failed to handle a matter when it was up for action 
— and if that attitude of Catholics be treason, the people will make 
the most of it. 

The fundamental law of the land grants freedom of conscience 
and enforces religious toleration ; but it does not give any one the 
right to use that very law as a basis upon which to stand and de- 
stroy or undermine such fundamental law, so that the reverse can 
be instituted. 

To the Romanists of America, the pope says, "Whosoever is 
separated from the (Roman) church is united to an adulteress": 
this is a picture of our beloved land as impressed on the "con- 
science" of a Catholic, who is in duty bound to aid him in estab- 
lishing the opposite, by uniting State and Church under popery; 
like the German Kaiser, the Romanists want "Peace" — but it 
must come only after the opponents of the pope are under the sod, 
or are resistless under the spiked heel of that institution, reason 
secure under the pope's Authority, with virtue and honesty com- 
mitted to his agents the priests ! 

What does "the" church teach which must be held as of equal 
authority as the Gospels? Here are a few articles of "faith" 
which will indicate what may be expected from a Catholic "con- 
science" : 

"Saint" Liguori : "When a crime is well concealed, the witness, 
and even the criminal, may and even must swear that the crime 
has not been committed." 

"The guilty party may yet do likewise, when a half proof can 
not be brought against him." 

Can a woman who has committed adultery deny it under oath? 
Liguori answers: "Yes; provided she has been to confess, and 
received the absolution ; for then the sin has been pardoned, and 
has really ceased to exist." ( !) 

Liguori (L. 2) : "Though lying is forbidden, we may be allowed 
to conceal the truth, or to disguise it under ambiguous or equivo- 
cal words or signs for a just cause. ... If, for example, you are 
among heretical people, you can do more good by concealing your 
faith." (To what extent were the Jesuit "missionaries" governed 
by this "principle" among the heathen of India, China, Japan? 
To what extent does FarrelFs letters show he was governed by it 



214 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

in this the twentieth century? Verily, the Roman church NEVER 
CHANGES.) 

Qu. "22. Are we sometimes allowed to use mental reservation 
in a loose sense or determinable equivocation? 

Ans. : "Yes ; when there is a grave reason for doing so. Such 
a manner of speaking" merely permits the hearer "to deceive him- 
self concerning matters which he has no right to know," p. 306, 
"Manual of Christian Doctrine." (This is the predicate of 
Liguori's theology.) 

The pope can release from any oath. — St. Thomas, Ques. 89» 
Art. 9, Vol. IV. 

Heretics must be killed. — St. Thomas, Vol. IV, p. 91. 

Pope can release subjects from oath of allegiance to civil ruler. 
—St. Thomas, Vol. IV, p. 91. 

All the foregoing goes to shape the Catholic "conscience." And 
here's more ; from the decree of the church adopted at the Lateran 
Council, which is not dead — but sleeping — awaiting "expediency": 

"We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy ... by 
whatever name they may be known. . . . Seculiar powers . . . 
are . . . compelled ... to swear that they will exert themselves 
to the utmost in the defense of the faith, and extirpate all 
heretics. 

"If any temporal lord . . . neglect to clear his territory of 
heretical depravity . . . the fact shall be signified to the Supreme 
Pontiff, who will declare his vassals (subjects) released from 
their allegiance from that time, and will bestow the territory on 
Catholics, to be occupied by them, on the condition of exterminat- 
ing the heretics. 

"Catholics who shall assume the cross for the extermination of 
heretics shall enjoy the indulgencies as are granted those who go 
to the help of the Holy Land" (i. e., same as those who fight 
against the Turks!) 

"We decree further, that all who may have dealings with here- 
tics, and especially such as receive, defend, or encourage them, 
shall be excommunicated." 

THE LAWS OF THE STATES OF THE UNION FORBID 
ALL THESE LAWS AND DECREES OF THE ITALIAN 
CHURCH — Farrell says if it be treason to oppose the laws of the 
land in favor of the laws of his church, make the most of it. 

When a man studies for the Roman priesthood, he spends about 
six years with the "classics" — ancient paganism, and the same 
amount of time with the "traditions" and "decrees and defini- 
tions" and "writings of the holy fathers"; now give him a "sub- 
ject" with a "conscience" brought up under the Index, one not 
allowed to question, and you can the more readily understand 
from Farrell's letters what chance a papal subject has of learn- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 215 

ing the difference between God's law and the pope's will — the 
utter impossibility of appreciating the liberties of a free people, 
and to ever be content to live in a land where the accursed doc- 
trines of popery are not the laws of the land. 

The Congress of the United States should appoint a joint com- 
mission and make a thorough investigation of the pope's religion; 
and if it be found conflicting with the fundamental laws of the 
land, or tends to debase the morals of the people, or subverts the 
principles of democracy, ABOLISH IT. Make it a penitentiary 
offense to teach or practice Rome's polluting Theology, just as 
Mormon Polygamy was abolished. It can be done — it must be 
done. What say you, Americans? 

To Roman Catholics, I say: "If this be 'religious' intolerance 
— make the most of it." 

That foreign, Italian institution that has slipped into America 
under the veneer of Christianity to tear down what our fore- 
fathers erected at the cost of blood, teaches that in countries not 
Catholic, in order that the demoralizing, blighting curse of popery 
may have freedom to operate its laws and practice its political 
schemes for a world-empire under the livery of heaven, "it is 
lawful to seek for such change of government as will bring about 
due liberty of action." Leo XIII, Enc. Lets., p. 16. 

This is inciting to treason and rebellion — awaiting opportunity 
or "expediency," for execution, as in Ireland. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 10, 1917. 
Dear Sir: In answer to your Question 17, I stated: "The 
Catholic church does not recognize any other church as having 
been founded by Jesus Christ. Christ established but one church. 
Our church teaches, and we Catholics believe, that the Catholic 
church is that church." 

(1) Your objections under this head are not pertinent. Indeed, 
since we do not demand that you believe that the Catholic church 
was founded by Christ, and since you have nothing to do with our 
believing it, it seems rather bordering on the impertinent; but it 
is a small matter. 

(2) Only, you ought to be satisfied NOT to believe what you 
don't believe. If you are not, how can it satisfy you better to 
have us also dissatisfied? 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J- J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) Christ said: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you 
in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 

"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of 
thorns, or figs of thistles? 

"A good tree can not bring forth evil fruit, neither can a cor- 
rupt tree bring forth good fruit." Matt, vii: 15-18. 



216 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Farrell says "since we do not demand — " Who are "we"? — 
Catholic laymen? Since when has the pope delegated to them the 
right to speak authoritatively for him on this subject? What 
Catholic laymen say and what the LAW of the POPE DEMANDS 
are different matters, and until Farrell can show credentials au- 
thorizing what "we" demand as being LAW, his remarks must 
remain as those of an individual, and not an answer to what the 
church teaches. I have tried all the way along to get him to dis- 
tinguish between what individuals wished and what his church 
taught "we" must do. When an unfettered mind can be convinced 
that Christ has any connection with an Institution with the record 
of the popes behind it, with bloody record behind it, with the mur- 
derous laws now supporting it, with the anti-social doctrines it 
teaches, then I will be willing to admit such to be Christian; how- 
ever, I am not so much interested in whether the Roman church be 
pagan or Christian in religion, as I am in what it teaches in re- 
gard to those who refuse to acknowledge the authority of the 
pope; and the Italian church has ever considered it "impertinent" 
to question what the pope teaches through his church the priests, 
especially when the fruits of the system are involved. 

(2) The ten lost tribes of Israel were at one time among God's 
chosen people : the Roman church was Christian, until it fell into 
the pit the devil dug for Christ: "And the devil taketh Him into 
an exceeding high mountain, and showeth Him all the kingdoms 
of the world, and the glory of them. And saith unto him, All 
these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship 
me." Matt. iv:8-9. 

As an American, I am satisfied to let Romanists enjoy their 
religion in all its phases, even if such be abhorrent to me, until 
said religion intrenches upon the rights of non-Catholics; then, I 
am for abolishing by law every phase of that religion which seeks 
to interfere, or would if in the ascendency interfere, with the laws 
of the land and the guarantees of liberty of the Constitution. 

It is impossible for me to make "Catholics" dissatisfied; there 
is no chance in the world for this book to "get by" the Index — 
that's what it is for: a few priests may read it — and admit its 
truth; but these leters from the association have been a revelation 
to me; I see deeper into the system now than could have been 
possible from any course of reading, and if I can show my fellow- 
countrymen the social and political menace of the papal institu- 
tion, I will consider my work not in vain. I am convinced Roman- 
ism is a political institution with a world-wide ambition, mas- 
querading under the thin veil of Christianity, and if not held in 
subjection to the laws of the land will make America what she 
has made Spain — for the forces which made this country did not 
make Spain and Italy — Italy up to 1870. The issue is purely 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 217 

political, and if "religion" enters into it at all, it is merely used 
as a cloak. 

I ask the reader to carefully consider the laws and decrees of 
the Roman chuich, and ask himself the question honestly: Can 
they bless a fr«e people? Are the laws of the pope the will of 
Christ? If not, then, they must be suppressed. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 10, 1917. 

Dear Sir : Yai asked me in 16 if I thought there is any perse- 
cution of Catholics in this country. 

Now, you say, "the object of this question was to ascertain if 
you really believe . . . that Catholics and non-Catholics are of 
the same flesh, vith the same feelings, the same nature," and 
so on. 

I hope you willpardon me, but I am at an utter loss to fathom 
your meaning. Snce you have been good enough to disclose the 
hidden motive of your question, you will doubtless be willing to 
unveil the hiddenmeaning of your objection. 

(1) I shall awat your helpful and enlightening assistance on 
this score. Very truly yours, 

JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 



COMMENT 

(1) Mr. Farrell wants enlightenment — very well: Human 
nature has been th same since the day Adam and Eve walked 
out of the Garden d Eden: the laws and decrees of the pope have 
been the same through all the centuries where papal subjects were 
in the majority in e^ry country, and the result has been the same 
in those countries. Vhere popery has been in power, a country's 
law-makers must mke it a penal crime — punish with death or 
debasement — not to belong to the papal church, the essence of 
the papal laws and (screes. 

Now, Romanists en not point to a single country in the world 
where the church wa in "accord" with the State without admit- 
ting the above charg0and that this "accord" blighted that nation; 
now, then, if Catholic believe all men are essentially alike — that 
we are all of the same^lesh and blood, they know that that which 
will make one bleed, vM also make another bleed ; that which will 
make one smile, will lave the same effect upon another; that 
which will stir and kiflle the wrath of one will have like effect 
upon another; AND, lit has ever been true, or would be true 
again, under Romanisn to be a Protestant was your death war- 
rant, certainly Rome c^ not fill a non-Catholic country, as this, 
with her priest-agentslo direct the laymen toward control of 
politics, secure 80 per tent, of all prominent national appoint- 
ments, secure and hold Vluable untaxed property in the name of 
the pope, monopolize thdt>icture shows to advertise priests, nuns, 
and other papal propaghda while holding up all non-Catholic 
affairs and institutions b ridicule in the most subtle manner, 



218 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

censor and curb the free press, intimidate Protestant ministers 
and non-Catholic speakers by boycott or murder End mob violence, 
attempt to close all public halls against those wk> desire to speak 
on popery, combine into one society all the Cathdics in the coun- 
try and become the balance of power politically, work for the 
destruction of the free public school system in fzvor of the papal 
parochial school, introduce bills in Congress, Stete Legislatures 
and City Councils to suppress free speech and tie free press, and 
use its membership to try to block every civil mcral reform of the 
country — I repeat, if Catholics believe we are <f the same flesh, 
such activities as above enumerated in an ove-whelmingly non- 
Catholic country, they know will arouse bitter opposition — not 
as exemplified by papists: of death, exile, aid confiscation of 
property, but they know it means absolute difranchisement of 
every subject of the pope in America. If it goe further than the 
battle of ballots, it will be because the pope blieves his 350,000 
Knights of Columbus and 300,000 Hibernians :an turn the trick 
with the bayonet. 

Romanists think they have "put one over" Americans in cap- 
turing the "movies" and muzzling the press— but every Romish 
suggestion thrown on the screen but augments the antagonism, 
and intensifies the study of the question, wiile the antics of a 
muzzled press are viewed with contempt. 

I trust this will elucidate my meaning tcMr. Farrell's satis- 
faction. 

Augusta, }a., Nov. 12, 1917. 

Dear Sir: You have reserved No. 19 fordiscussion to be held 
at the meeting which I hope you are makin; some success in ar- 
ranging for. So I shall take up 20. 

You ask why not eliminate certain wods from my answer. 
Why, man, it would be meaningless then I said, and repeat: 
"There is no question of any sort open to nvestigation, that we 
are not as free to investigate as any othe person." 

(1) You say eliminate "open to investiation." But there are 
some questions that are not open to invesigation; can't you rec- 
ognize this to be true? We need not invstigate an error where 
we know the truth, that necessarily exclues the error. Catholics 
know Christ is God, for example ; if they on't, they are not Cath- 
olics; since they do, it is perfectly idle fr them to "investigate" 
the theories of Renen and his various cop ists and imitators. The 
divinity of Christ is a closed question i( Catholics. 

Knowledge of the truth closes any qustion. As to the lives of 
the popes, of course they are open to instigation like any other 
fact, and open to Catholics no less tha others, as is any other 
passing fact. 

(2) You ask the name of "JUST 0?E" Catholic layman who 
possesses an uncensored history of the Ves of the popes. I gladly 
give you one, sir; it is Yours trul: 

JJF/MC J. J- Farrell, Mgr. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 219 

COMMENT 

(1) To say any question is not open to investigation is to deny 
both the existence of Reason and its Source; to admit Reason but 
prevent its exercise, is equivalent to fitting the eagle with wings, 
but not allow it to soar beyond the confines of a cage: the eagle 
can fly, oh, yes — around in his cage; a Catholic can investigate 
any question — oh, yes, within the confines of the cage of papal 
censorship) here are the BARS to the mental cage made by the 
pope: Holy Scripture, Sacred Theology, Ecclesiastical History, 
Canon Law, Natural Theology, Ethics, Religious or Moral Ques- 
tions; any question arising under these subjects ARE NOT open 
to independent investigation, although they cover every phase of 
man's existence as the canopy of heaven covers the earth; there- 
fore, there is no question open to investigation by Catholic lay- 
men. 

(2) Mr. Farrell says: "We need not investigate an error where 
we know the truth . . . Catholics know Christ is God." Here 
again Mr. Farrell uses the personal pronoun "we": who are "we"? 
Does he mean the Catholic laymen, or the pope? If he has laymen 
in mind, is he sure they know "Christ is God?" Did they learn this 
by a personal, independent investigation of the subject, or did 
they learn it from the pope? If from the pope, then they do not 
know it as a fact of their own knowledge, but only as hearsay, 
evidence that is not admissible even in a court of justice among 
men. A knowledge of God is had primarily from His Word, 
which commands, "Study to show yourselves workmen that 
needeth not to be ashamed," which enables one to "give a reason 
for the hope" within, and it is those who "search the Scriptures" 
who are competent to testify of Him. The Catholic, being re- 
stricted, having to get his knowledge from the priest and not 
allowed to question, DOES NOT know Christ is God — he only 
knows the priest says the pope says He is; the priest also tells 
the Catholic that the little pancake is Christ the God, which he 
must worship, then eat; does he know this pancake is Christ the 
God from a personal, independent investigation of the subject? 
No ; he says he knows it is, because the priest said the pope said 
it is. The tragedy of the ages ! The divinity of the pancake "is a 
closed question for Catholics." 

In a nutshell Pope Gregory encloses the Catholic mind; said 
he: "If the Holy Church (i. e., the pope) so requires, let us sacri- 
fice our own opinions, our knowledge, our intelligence, and the 
most sublime attainments of the human understanding." When 
a Romish priest takes a little pancake and says, "Hoc est envm 
corpus meum" over it, to believe it then has become the living 
Christ the God to be eaten certainly requires absolute obedience 



220 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

to Gregory! which is paraphased by Loyola, who teaches "What 
I see White is Black, if the superior authority defines it so." 

But I do not object to one believing this if his conscience has 
been so developed as to admit of it; but I do object to Catholics 
being in politics and in public schools as teachers when I know 
the same forces that shaped their conscience in this particular 
also makes it a matter of religius conscience to so shape conditions 
as will bring me and mine to the point when we must consider 
that a question "not open to investigation" and suffer the penal- 
ties prescribed in the LAWS of the ROMAN CHURCH for re- 
fusing to eat what the pope says is my God. My object in enlarg- 
ing upon this "religious" part of the discussion is to show that 
if one can be thus directed by the will of another, I do not believe 
such to be safe custodians of democracy and human liberty. 

(3) Mr. Farrell says he has an uncensored history of the lives 
of the popes ; if he has, his bishop had to issue a permit for him 
to retain it, just as the Laymen's Association could not be formed 
without a permit; even if he has, HE IS NO LONGER A LAY- 
MAN in the true sense of the word — he has become what may be 
called a "cleric" — he is a "teacher," and to be a teacher and a 
layman in the Catholic church, in his capacity, is impossible, ac- 
cording to canon law. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 12, 1917. 

Dear Sir: You seem to be badly tangled in your objections to 
No. 18. 

You say in your first paragraph, "your answer is neither demo- 
cratic nor Catholic," and "if followed to its logical conclusion in 
practice would be the reign of anarchy." In the second para- 
graph you say, "your theory ... is the bedrock of Protestant- 
ism." 

Now if my answer is the bedrock of Protestantism and yet, if 
put in practice, would mean the reign of anarchy, as you conclude, 
you must think very poorly of Protestantism. As to whether it 
"destroys Catholicism," we can let that pass ; you certainly should 
not demur on that account. 

But before going further into the matter, I wish to know if you 
stand on the proposition that the bedrock of Protestantism if put 
in practice would mean the reign of anarchy. 

Then I shall tell you how Catholics are taught to obey Con- 
science in spite of everything in the world. 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J- J- Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

Let us see, now, if I am bady tangled, or if Mr. Farrell is try- 
ing to hide the fact that the spirit of Romanism is such as to pit 
every Catholic against the laws of the State. 

Referring back to his original answer, he says that in the event 
there is a conflict between the laws of the State and Roman 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 221 

church, one or the other would be exceeding its authority, In 
which case one must determine for himself which one is right. 
This would be anarchy — not democracy ; democracy, that is, where 
the people in a free country determine what should be, then legis- 
late to that end ; his answer above referred to is not Catholic, for 
in Catholic countries, where autocracy obtains, laws are made at 
the behest of the king and sanctioned by the Catholic hierarchy 
without reference to the wishes of the people. According to Far- 
rell, each individual is to determine for himself, after a law has 
been passed, whether or not it suits his particular conscience; 
how long would a democratic form of government endure — would 
it not certainly end in anarchy? 

Formerly I said "y°ur theory ... is the bedrock of Protes- 
tantism." What was Farrell's "theory"? It was, the matter of 
each individual choosing for himself; but such choice on the part 
of Protestants or supporters of democracy to advocate or oppose 
legislation is exercised BEFORE, and NOT AFTER, it has be- 
come LAW. 

A Catholic layman can not "choose" in politics or religion; the 
word "heretic" means to "choose." All Protestants are "heretics" 
because they "choose" instead of having some one else indicate 
or direct what they must do; and if the majority of "heretics" 
choose a certain proposition and make it law, the minority must 
abide by it. 

The exercise of individual conscience to determine whether or 
not a question or proposed law is right, "is the bedrock of Protes- 
tantism" — by which democratic laws are made, and the same ex- 
ercise of individual conscience prompts obedience. 

Romanists must be governed by what the pope defines as law; 
call it "conscience" if you will; they are governed by his AU- 
THORITY, not "conscience," as I understand the word; if there 
is a conflict between the laws of the State and church of Rome, a 
Catholic can not choose between them as a matter of conscience, 
for the very simple reason he had no voice in making the law of 
the church — his conscience nor choice had nothing to do with its 
creation, neither can he question as to its being right or wrong, 
hence his attitude in such case is pre-determined by the same au- 
thority which makes him a Catholic. 

Mr. Farrell says he will tell how "Catholics are taught to obey 
Conscience in spite of everything in the world," so I will take up 
the matter in part right now, in connection with the instant sub- 
ject of choosing between the laws of the State and of the church. 

"Prudence," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "proceeds from reason, 
and to reason it specifically pertains to guide and govern. . . . 
But it is evident that the SUBJECT ... and the SERVANT 
. . . ought neither to control nor govern, but rather be CON- 



222 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

TROLLED and GOVERNED. . . . Whence it manifestly results 
that prudence exists in the RULER, as it exists in the architect 
with regard to the building he has to construct, . . . and that it 
exists in the SUBJECT, as it exists in the workman employed in 
the construction." St. Th., 2a 2ae, Q. ii, 2, 4, 7, art. 12. This is 
the highest authority in the Roman church ; he plainly shows that 
the pope in all things is the "architect" while laymen are but as 
"workmen," whose only expression must be obedience in carrying 
out the designs of the "ruler." 

Now, let us see what this "ruler" tells Catholics what consti- 
tutes law: "Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance 
with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the 
eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is 
called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather 
a species of violence." — St. Thomas Sum. Theol., la 2ae, Q. xciii, 
art. 3. There you are! There's where Farrell gets his answer; 
to a Catholic where there is a conflict between laws, to his "con- 
science" the laws of the State are but "a species of violence." To 
the intelligent, I say, memorize these quotations — they are the 
life principles of the papal system. 

In a great church council the writings of St. Thomas were 
placed on the altar with the Bible, as being equally worthy of 
emulation, and Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII ordered his doctrine 
taught in every Catholic seminary in the world; Lee ordered all 
writers to be guided by him ; surely, Farrell will not contend that 
"St. Thomas" leaves any room for an exercise of an individual 
conscience; an individual conscience carries with it the right of 
private judgment which calls for individual reasoning to pursue 
the investigation — principles which CAN NOT exist in the pope's 
church. 

Compare the laws of the United States Constitution and the 
laws of the papal church; observe how they conflict at every 
point ; then remember what those laws are in the mind of a Cath- 
olic; they are as fire and water — both can NOT exist at the same 
time in the same place— ONE must go; WHICH SHALL IT BE? 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 13, 1917 
Dear Sir: (1) Under 27, what have your first four citations to 
do with the subject? 

(2) You say they "reveal the attitude of the church toward the 
priesthood." You are wrong; they show her regard for the sanc- 
tity of marriage, which a priest, since he cannot either lawfully 
or validly contract, can scarce do worse than pretend he has con- 
tracted. 

Your fifth citation seems pertinent at first blush ; but read the 
question and answer again: — "Does the church teach that mem- 
bers must not accuse priests or bishops known to have committed 
grave sins?" "No." And now, read what Leo says: "No private 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 223 

person may arrogate to himself the office of judge" (not accuser) ; 
next he warns us "not rashly to judge," not to set ourselves "in 
audacious opposition," not to refuse "respectful submission" to 
superiors. Where is there anything here forbidding Catholics to 
accuse a priest known to have committed grave sin? 

If you wish instances where Catholics have accused some priest 
of a grave sin, ask some ex-priest whose undoing came through 
his own parishioners who knew it was their duty to accuse him 
and have him judged by his superiors, as was done. 

(4) You are aware, of course, that Catholics are human; but 
you do not at times seem conscious that the church also is aware 
of this fact. Very truly, 

JJF/GT J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) These citations answer for themselves. 

(2) Mr. Farrell (?) says those citations show the regard the 
Roman church has "for the sanctity of marriage"! To me it 
shows the utter depravity of a society which has accepted ancient 
paganism for Christianity, and a pope instead of God, the result 
of following the Traditions of men instead of the Word of God. 

Refer to those citations under Question 27 : now remember that 
marriage is a union of a man and woman according to the will 
and command of God which renders it holy in His sight; it is the 
means of populating the earth in obedience to His command; it 
is also a type — of Christ and His Church, by which souls are born 
unto God, and it is so sacred that popery has elevated it to "sacra- 
ment," while the "writings of the holy fathers" say that it is 
better for a priest of the pope to go wrong with a hundred differ- 
ent women than to marry one; it is better for them to use and 
abuse every RIGHT of marriage than to violate its sanctity by 
assuming the RITE ! 

Farrell's answer can be impressed on the mind in no better way 
than by illustrating it with the act of a Roman Catholic priest in 
New York about six years ago, Hans Schmidt, who married his 
housekeeper, and because he "loved her so," killed her, and after 
cutting the body into small pieces, threw it with the unborn child 
into the river ; he loved her so well as to destroy her and his own 
unborn child : to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage Rome would 
rather her priests become as stray torn cats in human society than 
have them "desecrate" its "sanctity" by obeying the law of God 
and His Natural Laws ! 

Let us see what "Saint" Liguori has to say along this line: if a 
priest should, from human frailty "fall, say, once a month, it 
should not be held against him if repentant!" Hans Schmidt was 
repentant; to hide from the world the result of the logical teach- 
ing of the ''holy fathers," all he had to do was, commit double 
murder, "confess" to his father confessor, get "absolution" and — 
hunt another victim. 



224 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Paul refers to this "dogma" of refusing to marry, also of keep- 
ing holy days, abstaining from eating meats, etc., as being "the 
doctrines of devils." 

(3) The language of Leo here is too clear for its meaning to 
be perverted even by Jesuitical skill: "No private person may 
arrogate to himself the office of judge which Christ our Lord has 
bestowed on that one alone whom He has placed in charge of His 
sheep." As the context shows, this word "Judge," as here used 
is an intransitive verb, indicating a person in an office or holding 
the position of Juge; in this sentence, Leo gives the whole world 
to understand that the Roman priesthood, because of ITS "sanc- 
tity," is above the laws of every country, and that no one can sit 
in judgment on a priest, because Christ has committed to him, the 
pope, the sole right to be the judge in such cases; the next sen- 
tence deals and refers specifically to those who are "subjects" of 
the pope under the priest and bishop, and warns: "Subjects 
should be admonished not rashly to judge their prelates even if 
they chance to see them acting in a blameworthy manner. . . . 
Should . . . the superiors really have committed grave sins, their 
inferiors . . . ought not to refuse them respectful submission." 
Only a rudimentary knowledge of grammar is sufficient to recog- 
nize that as used here the word "judge" is a transitive verb, pass- 
ing over from the person, considering his act. 

Leo does not use the word accuse; but his language when anal- 
ized proves even stronger than my question: before you can 
accuse, it is necessary first to "judge" (v. t.) by what you know 
or have seen that your grounds upon which the accusation rests 
are tenable ; so we see at a glance that, as Roman Catholic laymen 
can not "judge," they are naturally estopped or barred from 
accusing a priest. 

To paraphrase Leo, the teaching here is : although a priest may 
have committed a grave sin, laymen would be rash to notice it, 
because in so doing, they are "judging" the acts of their superiors 
and thus not only refusing them respectful submission, but are 
acting in disregard of REASON, as the pope only has the right 
to REASON for them. 

I do not think there is any doubt left as to the meaning of 
what Leo teaches — and what seemed "pertinent at first blush" 
has been strengthened by the second. 

I pause here to call attention to the papal characteristic shown 
in FarrelFs effort to twist and pervert the use of words in the 
effort to conceal what he did not want to reveal. 

If any doubt of Leo's teaching above remains, the Motu Proprio 
Decree of Pope Pius X, October 9, 1911, would clear it away. 
Said he: "We determine and ordain that whatever private per- 
son, lay or cleric, man or woman, shall, without obtaining per- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 225 

mission of ecclesiastical authorities, cite to lay tribunal and com- 
pel to appear there publicly any ecclesiastical person, either in a 
criminal or civil case, will incur excommunication." (A decree 
Motu Proprio is the most forceful document a pope can issue.) 

Where the Roman church bows in submission to civil law in 
English-speaking countries, it is from expediency; no where in 
the Canon Law of the church is the right as such recognized for 
a layman to hale a priest before the courts, as Pius X shows; 
therefore, while the church destroys both the laws of God and 
man to protect the "sanctity" of the marriage CEREMONY, the 
layman can not under the laws of that Italian institution protect 
the SANCTITY OF HIS HOME against the pope's priests! 

(4) Oh, yes; knowing that "the church" is the pope, and having 
the history of the popes, I know they were very human — in fact, 
more human than divine; so also are all the laws which they 
made. The priest who really desires to live according to the 
Word of God knows that the devils in hell could not invent a more 
cruel torture or promulgate a more dangerous doctrine than to 
say a priest shall not marry, then place him daily in the confes- 
sional with the Moral ( ?) Theology of Dens and Liguori, to dis- 
cuss matters which even in his preparatory studies Dens admits 
will cause "pollutions"! Paul says that "evil communications 
corrupt good manners." The Master taught His followers to 
pray, "Lead us not into temptation." The "writings of the holy 
fathers" admit that the confessional leads into temptation: IS 
THE ROMAN CHURCH DIVINE OR HUMAN? If a doctor's 
prescription kills instead of healing, it is the wrong prescription; 
if the pope's church leads into temptation instead of from sin, 
it is not Christ's church; and if not Christian, it must be pagan, 
and no pagan should be a citizen of this Republic. 

If the pope uses every known remedy to prevent his subjects 
from knowing both good and evil, why does he not apply a certain, 
positive remedy to his priests and make it physically impossible 
for them to "go wrong"? 

Augusta, Ga-, Nov. 14, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Your Question 24 assumed that Catholics are for- 
bidden "to discuss or study, independently of priest-censorship, 
any subject relating to religion, morality, etc." 

(1) I answered that we are not so forbidden, and you are 
"amazed," you say, because Leo XIII forbids Catholics to read 
books defending heresy or schism or attacking the foundations of 
religion. 

It is your idea, then, that the only way to study religion, moral- 
ity, etc., is to read books attacking the foundations of religion or 
defending heresy or schism? If you profess a religion (I can not 
judge from your paper), do you deem it necessary to deny or 
doubt it in order to dwell on its mysteries and its truths? 



226 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

If you profess a religion, you must either believe it or doubt it, 
and if you doubt it you can not profess it very sincerely. But if 
you believe it without a doubt, you are in the same attitude as 
Catholics, who can not be benefited through the doubts of others. 

(2) My answer to 24, therefore, is not inconsistent with the 
rules of the Index which you cite and it fully answers your ques- 
tion. Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

The object of Question 24 was to learn on what basis Catholics 
hoped to establish peace with non-Catholics, when the church of 
Rome forbids its members to discuss or study, INDEPENDENT- 
LY of PRIEST-CENSORSHIP, any subject relating to religion, 
morality, ecclesiastical history, etc., as these subjects embrace all 
that is worth while among people, for it is obvious that if they 
as laymen are barred from exercising THEIR OWN REASON 
AND MIND in these things, there would be no ground upon 
which LAYMEN could meet non-Catholics; Farrell flatly entered 
a denial, saying (1) : "I answered that we are not so forbidden," 
then rambles along, grumbling about what he perhaps thinks I 
ought to have said and what he thinks was my "idea." 

I was "amazed" at Farrell's answer— not Leo — where he denied 
a FIXED LAW OF HIS CHURCH— denied the faith again. He 
repeats, in this letter : that Catholics are not forbidden to pursue 
an independent study of the subjects enumerated; I remain 
amazed with his answer, coming as it does from one who claims 
to be governed by the tenets of the only church established by 
Christ — and if I understand anything at all about the Christian 
religion it prohibits deceitfulness. The rules of the Index have 
been in force many centuries, and instead of a bald denial, Farrell 
should have cited an authority for his answer destroying Leo's 
Decree and the Canon Law which forbid Catholics to read or even 
have in their possession any UNCENSORED book that treats of 
"Holy Scripture, Sacred Theology, Ecclesiastical History, Canon 
Law, Natural Theology, Ethics, all writings treating of religious 
or moral subjects." This is a question of law and fact, and is 
established as clear as the noonday's sun, yet Farrell disputes it. 

(2) Is my question fully answered? If Jesuitical evasion is an 
answer, yes. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 14, 1917. 

Dear Sir: What you say of the Jesuits under 22 is subject to 
the same comment made under 21. 

Really, there is no longer much excuse for well-informed per- 
sons to take seriously those writers of fiction who exploited "dia- 
bolical Jesuitry" a few decades back. The verdict of enlightened 
scholarship, since the opening of the Vatican archives to the 
public by Leo XIII, has everywhere discountenanced them. His- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 227 

tory is now seen clearly to condemn them. Judicial decisions have 
been pronounced against them, among which one of the most 
notable is the case of Vaughn vs. "The Rock," in which the de- 
fendant newspaper was convicted in libel for publishing some of 
those old fictions that you have been taking for true. 

I refer you to the record of that case tried in a Protestant coun- 
try before a court where Judge, Jury and Counsel were all Protes- 
tant. You will find some first hand information there that will 
surprise you. Very truly, 

JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

When it comes to trying a case in our courts involving a priest 
of Rome, it seems to be a joke. In such cases, so great is the 
political and intimidating power of Rome in America, although 
so few in comparative numbers, that to convict, guilt must be 
established to a mathematical certainty and beyond a shadow of 
a doubt, and even then the thousand-and-one technical loop-holes 
must also be closed — therefore the citations do not interest me; 
especially when I know that a priest in Massachusetts only about 
four years ago kidnaped a girl from the altar-rail of his own 
church, and ruined her; he escaped the just penalty for his crime 
against God and virtue through a technicality, when he should 
have been hanged; also the Knights of Columbus who murdered 
William Black in Marshall, Texas, who saved their necks by papal 
influence ; also the priest who got on a drunken spree and stabbed 
an old man to death at the railroad station in Chicago — a Mr. 
Patterson — the priest was turned loose on the plea of "temporary 
insanity"; also the case in Minnesota where one of Rome's holy 
fathers took advantage of a defenseless woman who had shortly 
before undergone an operation and raped her: she appealed to the 
courts for justice — after about three trials, she took justice in her 
own hands in the shape of a Colt's — and sent him along to his 
popes ; special cases tried here in America, I repeat, do not inter- 
est me; but the historical, world-wide case tried in a CATHOLIC 
country by a CATHOLIC PARLIAMENT, the findings of which 
were sustained by a CATHOLIC KING, does interest me; I refer 
to the famous "Father Lavalette" case of France, wherein he 
tried to "do" a certain banking house out of several million francs, 
pleading certain "technicalities" created in his behalf by the 
"Constitution" of his order. To sustain his point, the constitu- 
tion of the Jesuits was submitted to Parliament — a blunder on 
their part — I will let the Catholic historian, de Cormenin, present 
the gist of it. On page 393, "History of the Popes," he says: 

"The Parliament again took hold of the proceeding, and after 
some months of inquries and pleadings, made decrees, which pro- 
nounced the doctrines and practices of the Jesuits 'as perverse, 
destructive of every principle of religion, and even of probity; as 



228 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

injurious to Christian morality, pernicious to civil society, sedi- 
tious, dangerous to the rights of the nation, the nature of the 
royal power, and the safety of the persons of sovereigns; as fit 
to excite the greatest troubles in States, to form and maintain the 
most profound corruption in the hearts of men'; it accordingly 
ordered that the institution of the Jesuits should forever cease to 
exist throughout the whole extent of the kingdom." Farrell can 
call his "fiction" if he will; those who "exploited diabolical 
Jesuitry" had only to "exploit" the findings of a Catholic Parlia- 
ment. (And even to-day, although France has set up a republic, 
she forbids Jesuits to enter the country — which means, of course, 
that the French are not "informed persons," and won't accept 
"the verdict of enlightened scholarship.") What is true of France 
is also a fact now, to-day, in Catholic Spain; and what those 
countries did, one of the rather recent popes did in Rome — ran 
them out. 

The writer of the "Farrell" letters seems to be well-versed in 
many of the "principles and tenets" of the Jesuit order! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 21, 1917. 
Dear Sir: Regarding No. 21. 

(1) You ask me if various things you say in reference to the 
Jesuits are not true. In the main, no. You hit the truth some- 
times, of course, but not enough to give the impression that you 
have any first-hand knowledge of the matter. 

(2) Pope Clement's Brief in particular, Doirrinus ad Redemptor, 
suppressing the Jesuits, is misquoted, mutilated, perverted past 
all recognition. (3) The reference to Russia, also, is tortuous, 
without any mention of the Protestant Catherine's position in the 
matter, which falsifies the expression attributed to Alexander. 
(4) And the way you substitute "popular disfavor" for what all 
first-rate scholars know as courtly intrigue, is — well, noticeable, 
to say the least. 

(5) But in the notion that the Jesuit General is above the pope 
and the real head of the Catholic church, imagination runs riot, 
suggesting the idea of some novelist striving for the sensational 
and indifferent to probabilities even though, of course, it lacks 
originality. 

In fact, your entire treatment of 21 seems little more than a 
rehash from Eugene Sue's melodramatic diatribes featuring 
Rodine in his "Wandering Jew." 

(6) Did you not know that is classed as fiction? 

Very truly yours, 
JJF/MC J - J - Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) I plead guilty of not having "first-hand" knowledge of 
Jesuitism — as yet I have not attained unto that exalted (?) 
mental and physical state of a CORPSE, which is the first quali- 
fication for becoming a Jesuit and securing knowledge "first- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 229 

hand." It will be remarked that Mr. Farrell (?) says I "hit the 
truth sometimes" as to the Jesuits; how does he know — is he a 
Jesuit? If so, what sort of conspiracy against the people is the 
"Laymen's" association trying to palm off, by having a Jesuit at 
its editorial end INSTEAD of a LAYMAN? If he is NOT a 
Jesuit, then he has no "first-hand" knowledge of the subject, and 
can not say anything I have said concerning the order is not true. 

(2) Mr. Farrel seeks to mitigate the fact that the order was 
suppressed, by raising an issue as to the language alleged to have 
been used in the Brief. To sustain his charge, HE SHOULD 
HAVE QUOTED the Brief himself; not doing so, his veracity 
is pitted against standard, accredited historians — and we have 
seen what regard he has shown for truth, rules of logic, and defi- 
nition of words : so, the presumption remains in favor of the wit- 
nesses I have introduced; any one at all familiar with the spirit 
of popery knows that when a pope legislates against a person or 
proposition, he always uses the strongest language in his vocabu- 
lary; and surely if an institution was bad enough to be killed, we 
may look for the strongest language from the pope in the sen- 
tence. 

(3) Catherine's position in the matter has no bearing on the 
fact at issue ; Emperor Alexander and his decree are what we are 
discussing, which expelled the Jesuits in 1820, disobedience to 
which meant decapitation. Here also the presumption is in favor 
of the use of caustic language. However, the tenor of the lan- 
guage employed, whether mild or severe, does not alter the fact 
which it establishes — the expulsion — the main point I am pre- 
senting. 

(4) "Popular disfavor" follows "courtly intrigue" as certainly 
as decay follows death. "Courtly intrigue" is more damnable to 
the rights of a free people than an invading army with banners 
thrown to the winds. "Courtly intrigue" is the polished name for 
political chicanery; and what is "courtly intrigue"? Let the His- 
torian Nicolini of Rome, Italy, answer: "The Jesuits, by their 
very calling, by the very essence of their institution, are bound to 
seek, by every means, right or wrong, the destruction of Protes- 
tantism. This is the condition of their existence, the duty they 
must fulfill, or cease to be Jesuits." Now to "destroy Protestant- 
ism" is equivalent to the destruction of all human liberty — as 
expressed in the Constitution of the United States — and subject 
the world to popery with its Dark Ages. 

Pope Pius IX did not expel the Jesuits from Rome because of 
their "courtly intrigue." Hear Hon. R. W. Thompson, ex-Secre- 
tary of the United States Navy: "Their Society," Jesuits, "was 
regarded as a cankerous sore eating at the heart of society. They 
had been driven from every city in the provinces, and were fol- 



230 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

lowed by a degree of POPULAR ODIUM, which would have dis- 
spirited any other body of men. . . . Having found shelter in 
Rome, they crowded around the pope. ... At last the measure 
of popular odium which rested against them became so great that 
Pius IX was awakened to a consciousness of their dangerous pres- 
ence, and HE DROVE THEM OUT OF ITALY." This pope 
reigned from 1846 to 1878. At this period, the temporal prince- 
dom of the pope was getting very shaky, and the "popular odium" 
or "popular disfavor" of the Jesuits must have been very great 
among those Italian CATHOLICS for God's substitute on earth 
to drive from his side a society whose very existence is, to crush 
popular government by "courtly intrigue." 

(5) "Imagination runs riot" and keeps running that way when 
the tenets and practices of the order are considered ; fact is, when 
one becomes subject to it, so riotous does his imagination become 
that ever afterward he imagines himself to be a corpse. But to 
believe the Jesuit General is above the pope does not require a 
great stretch of the imagination : Leo XIII said that "the weaker 
power yields to the one which is stronger in human resources," 
and Farrell knows that the Jesuit order is the strongest factor 
in the Catholic church; that it is the most powerful in all re- 
sources : it is the brains of the church ; to it principally has been 
committed the duty of educating and capturing all means of edu- 
cation throughout the world and to bring the nations to the feet 
of the pope by their peculiar doctrines, a few of which have been 
noted elsewhere in these pages. 

(6) Truth is, at times, stranger than fiction; for instance, Jules 
Verne's "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" may be 
classed as fiction, but it presented a very tangible theory which 
gave birth to the submarine; Sue's "Wandering Jew" may also 
be classed as fiction — but with history for a background, it seems 
to point unerringly to a "submarine" influence more destructive 
of free Ships of State than German submarines to ships of com- 
merce. 

By the way; "Farrell" seems to be quite familiar with Sue's 
works to be a "layman" — Sue's works are prohibited by the rules 
of the Index, and anathema is pronounced against laymen who 
have or read them ! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 15, 1917. 

Dear Sir: (1) Your discussion under 29 might be taken seri- 
ously if you had the advantage of knowing anything about the 
subject, but never having yourself been obedient to the church, 
you must see that you ought to take the word of her children re- 
garding the obedience she requires of them. 

(2) Her obedient children, I mean, not the disobedient. We 
who try to observe her rules know best whether they are like iron 
law of the trenches or the gentle sway of the home; and that hun- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 231 

dreds of millions yield her faithful, true loyalty, notwithstanding 
she has no army or navy or peace officers or prisons, would seem 
sufficient evidence to most men that we love her guide and rule. 

(3) That one in a thousand or so deserts her is proof for all 
that don't, and though it is evident he did not love her, his con- 
duct beforehand is proof as to why. You "defy" me to name an 
ex-priest or ex-nun she has not branded as wicked. I shall do 
that when you name one she did not expel because they were 
wicked. This is the rule. I shall gladly admit any exceptions 
shown. 

(4) Your last paragraph under 29 does not do you justice, for 
you know Catholics are not given a Catechism and told not to 
read any other books, but on the contrary are told not to read 
certain books and are permitted to read anything else, which is 
precisely the rule of a "well regulated family." 

Your best self will not thank your other self for this trans- 
parent effort. Very truly, 
JJF/GT J. J. Farrell. 

COMMENT 

(1) It is evidently bad logic to say one must pick up a deadly 
"live wire" before having the "advantage" of knowing anything 
about the subject of electricity; for, like Romanism, if you are 
put within its grip when you can not help yourself, take hold acci- 
dentally, or pick it up intentionally, you will know nothing of 
earthly interest very soon ! And I do not have to take the word 
of her "children," because the greatest of these are the Jesuits, 
and we know they have become as dead men, all of whom are in 
its grip ; I go to the "power house" and study the nature of that 
which holds them hard an fast, and its effect upon the children — 
and among other things I find that in serious matters affecting 
the faith, practices and claims of the church, the tongues of the 
"children" seem to be electrocuted — I have reference to these let- 
ters from the layman's association as illustrative of the point; 
I go to the source of power — the laws of the church; all knowl- 
edge that the "children" of the church may acquire is available, 
and more. 

(2) In our day, Romanism indeed has "no army or navy," the 
popes of bygone days controlled and commandeered these; this is 
proven by the bloody trail of Rome which festoons the pathway 
of man from the sixth century up to and including the Great 
War; the "courtly intrigue" of Romanism goes on perennially to 
that end; and if the "children" are obedient to "papa" they are 
also striving to the same end. The pope does not maintain an 
army or navy, but he is rapidly putting his subjects in control of 
ours of the United States, to be used for him when expedient! 
As to the "hundreds of millions" who are faithful to the pope, 
that does not prove anything in favor of the system ; for if nww- 
bers are to be considered, China, with her four hundred million 



232 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Ancestor- worshipers would have the first seat; and no doubt 
every German subject, especially officers, would say that the peo- 
ple love the Kaiser's guide and rule. As to prisons — I will pass 
without comment the convents and monasteries all over the world, 
where the civil law is barred — that are closed against inspection; 
and as Mr. Farrell is a layman, he does not have access thereto, 
hence can not say whether they are prisons or not. 

(3) This conclusion will not hold; there was very little differ- 
ence between the rule of Romanism over its subjects and the Rus- 
sian Czar over the Russians; the heads of the two systems merely 
refusing to recognize each other; and the few Russians who 
"deserted" that country was not "proof for all" who didn't ! The 
Orthodox Catholic Church of Russia did for the people just what 
the Roman Catholic church has done for the nations that follow 
popery — kingcraft coupled with priestcraft can result in one con- 
dition only. The whole world knows something of "Darkest Rus- 
sia," from tales told by "that one in a thousand or so" who de- 
serted her; and that was not "proof for all" that did not, for few 
could — Russia had her secret spies and emissaries scattered 
throughout civilization to deal with a "protesting" deserter — so 
has the papacy. Some one has likened the priesthood of Rome to 
a dagger whose points pierce the heart of every country, with 
the hilt in Rome. 

Farrell says when I name an ex-priest whom the church did not 
expel because he was "wicked," he will then name one that the 
church does not call wicked. It is a little difficult for a Roman 
Catholic and a Protestant to agree on what is meant by "wicked." 
Take Savonarola: he held to all the tenets of popery so far as 
dogmas were concerned; being one who tried to obey the injunc- 
tion of Holy Writ to "cry aloud and spare not," raised his mighty 
voice against what he considered wickedness of the pope and the 
priesthood of his day; Rome burnt him alive. I begin at the top, 
and scan the lives of the popes of Rome, and I find that Cardinal 
Gibbons along with Farrell admits there were a number of 
"wicked" popes according to the real meaning of the word as it 
is used in a Biblical sense, and over a hundred of those fellows 
should have been branded as "wicked" by the church and turned 
out; but instead the church canonized or made "saints" of some 
of them; history, written by Catholics, especially in the ages when 
Rome had no apparent valid reason to believe Protestantism 
would ever be powerful enough to use it against her, shows that 
Rome was indulgent to priests and nuns who were "wicked" even 
as she was to the popes; therefore the fact is disclosed that the 
Roman church does not consider them "wicked" according to Far- 
rell as long as they remain SUBJECT TO THE SYSTEM and 
the pope — they become "wicked" only in leaving Romanism; I 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 233 

will modify that statement somewhat, by saying that also when 
one becomes so audacious as to learn more than a pope, and lets 
the pope know it, he is "wicked" — Galileo, for instance. It is true, 
many of the popes were put out of "Peter's chair" because of 
their deviltry, but "the church" never "branded" them as being 
"wicked" and expelled them. 

State's evidence is acceptable in all cases; the Roman Cathfolic 
murderers who blew up the Los Angeles Times some years ago, 
killing twenty-one people, were convicted on State's evidence. 
Therefore, I will put up three witnesses who have turned State's 
evidence— let them speak FOR ALL THE PRIESTS WHO 
DON'T "desert": they have been "children" obedient to the 
church, and will testify to what "she requires of them." 

Charles Chiniquy was born in the faith, spent fifty years in the 
church, twenty-five as a priest. Hear him speaking from a "first- 
hand" knowledge: 

"Theology is the study of the knowledge of the laws of God. 
. . . How solemn were my thoughts and elevated my aspirations 
when ... I commenced my theological course of study . . . ! 

"I supposed that my books of theology were to bring me nearer 
to my God ... in their study. . . . 

"The principal theologians which we had in our hands were 
4 Les Conferences d' Anger,' Bailey, Dens, St. Thomas (Aquinas), 
but above all, Liguori, who has since been canonized (made a 
"saint"). Never did I open one without offering a fervent prayer 
to God and to the Virgin Mary for the light and grace of which 
I would be in need for myself and for the people whose pastor I 
was to become. 

"But how shall I relate my surprise when I discovered, that, in 
order to accept the principles of the theologians which my church 
gave me for GUIDES, I had to PUT AWAY all principles of 
TRUTH, of JUSTICE, of HONOR and of HOLINESS! What 
long and painful efforts it cost me to extinguish, one by one, the 
lights of truth and of reason kindled by the hand of my merciful 
God in my intelligence! For to study theology in the church of 
Rome signifies to learn to SPEAK falsely, to DECEIVE, to 
COMMIT ROBBERY, to PERJURE one's self! It means how 
to commit sin without shame, it means to plunge the soul into 
every kind of iniquity and turpitude without remorse! . . . The 
truth may be denied by many, but my witnesses are even infalli- 
ble. They are none other than Roman Catholic Theologians them- 
selves, approved by infallible popes! These very men who cor- 
rupted my heart, perverted my intelligence, and poisoned my soul, 
AS THEY HAVE DONE WITH EACH AND EVERY PRIEST 
OF THEIR CHURCH, will be my witnesses. . . . 

"And let it be remembered that all those abominations have to 



234 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

be studied, learned by heart and thoroughly understood by men 
who have to make a vow never to marry! For it is not till 
AFTER his vow of celibacy that the student in theology is initi- 
ated into those mysteries of inquity." According to the infer- 
ence of Farrell, Chiniquy was "branded as wicked" and expelled; 
if Farrell is a layman, how does he know this witness has not told 
the truth? 

("St." Thomas Aquinas, according to the Roman Breviary, re- 
quired angelic aid and intervention in this matter of celibacy. 
While in prayer before a cross he was seized with sleep and 
"underwent a miraculous operation by angels." (?) It is history 
that instead of using the natural means provided by God for His 
praise in letting women sing, in the Catholic church choir the 
Canon Law requires the use of boys "ACCORDING TO THE 
ANCIENT CUSTOM OF THE CHURCH," that is, it is alleged, 
mutilate them by a surgical operation, so they can reach the 
high tones in church songs, "to the greater glory of God"! But 
we do not know of the church adopting the suggestion toward her 
priests said to have been delivered by angels, relative to St. 
Thomas, although he is now the principal doctor of the whole 
church ; an angel delivered the scapular-charm to drive away evil 
spirits, and the church adopted and kept it up — because it pays — 
"there's millions in it"; but the "church" did not take kindly to 
the angelic suggestion as to priests!) 

Now I will put a living witness on the stand for the State, Dr. 
Joseph Slattery, an Irish ex-priest, who is now a member in good 
standing of the medical profession of Baltimore, Md. Hear him : 

"The treatise of . . . Pithou was sanctioned by Gregory XIII, 
and its teachings are embodied in the Canon Law of the church 
of Rome to-day. Concubinage is preferred to matrimony." 

The theology of Romanism "is the vilest literature that can be 
published, and that must not only be studied, but read and talked 
about in the class. It is impossible for anyone to go through a 
course of it without being corrupted by it. 

"One result of this study was the filling of the mind with the 
most appalling pictures of iniquity, and then you were told to 
pray TO MARY to remove these infernal imaginations. (Here, 
Farrell, is where "imagination runs riot!") 

"There are good men and bad men in the Roman Catholic priest- 
hood; BUT IF THEY ARE GOOD, they need not thank the 
Roman church for it." 

The late P. A. Seguin's testimony; he was a priest for long 
years, "deserted" and turned State's evidence: "Catholics say 
I was put out of the church because I was a bad man. I was born 
and raised a Catholic; I studied Rome's theology and became a 
priest! if I was a bad man, I WAS THE LEGITIMATE PROD- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 235 

UCT OF THE SYSTEM. The world thought me a good priest 
until I left the church, then Rome says I am a bad man." (He 
mentioned one priest in Canada who personally accepted and ap- 
plied the "angelic" suggestion as a means of keeping his vow!) 

After many centuries of tyrannical misrule, the Russian people 
destroyed Russian autocracy — from the wreck, liberty will event- 
ually arise as the bird from its own ashes; after hundreds of 
years the Latin races are beginning to throw off the "sweet" yoke 
of papalism, while at the same time the papal cohorts are striving 
with might and main to keep a foot-hold in Europe, and concen- 
trating all forces to establish a strangle-hold upon America. 

One of these days the American people are going to make Rome 
take her Dogmas, Laws and Moral Theology — Dens, Aquinas, 
Liguori, and the "fathers" along with the Roman Rituals, to the 
floor of the United States Congress for inspection ! 

(4) Of course, anyone understands that my language here was 
figurative — but true in a sense; I know they can read Grier's 
Almanac, the local paper — if it does not discuss "religion" or 
allude to the pope in an unpleasant way, etc.; the Catechism is 
supposed to teach a Catholic all he is to know about religion that 
the pope wants him to know; beyond this a Romanist can not 
budge an inch, without the consent of the Roman censor. Anyway, 
if the principle and fact were restricted to and among Catholics 
as "a well-regulated family" (by the way; what does a bachelor 
priest know about a "well-regulated family"? According to logic 
a la Farrell (?) not having a family, his knowledge is not "first- 
hand" and should be discredited — yet Romanists are willing for 
priests to state the rule for them to go by) . I say, if this censor- 
ship was kept among themselves, I would not object to it so stren- 
uously; but after Rome properly "regulates" her "children," she 
lays it on their "conscience" and makes them feel in duty bound to 
try to regulate others as to what they shall read or hear — even 
resorting to mobocracy and murder to prevent the pope and his 
priests from being criticized in print or speech. I say Rome lays 
the principle on the Catholic conscience: this doctrine is taught in 
Deharbe's Full Catechism of the Catholic Religion — that one can 
be guilty of the sins of another, by SILENCE; so, if any one, 
any where violates the rules of the INDEX to the knowledge of a 
Catholic, his church teaches that to remain SILENT renders him 
as guilty as if he had committed the offense against the pope him- 
self. And I lay the principle of that teaching as well as papal 
moral theology on the heart and conscience of every loyal Ameri- 
can citizen. 

Any man who follows that Catechism's teaching and would try 
to prevent a discussion of popery, and does not force the church 
to let him read Dens, Liguori and the Liturgies, is unfit for 



236 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

American citizenship — he should be reduced to the status of any- 
other alien. Also any so-called Protestant preacher who can be 
tolerant of such principles to the extent of letting his people re- 
main in ignorance of them so they will place papal subjects in 
civil positions, should himself be unfrocked; while any editor of 
a paper who knows the political aspirations of popery and does 
not combat it as he would an alien armed invasion, is unworthy 
to mould public opinion. 

In my criticism of Mr. FarrelPs answer to question No. 29, it 
will be seen that my objection to his answer was based on the 
citation from the bishop's oath, the Canon Law, and the Theology 
of Aquinas. In the above letter, he is endeavoring to combat my 
conclusions, but does not even mention their premise, which was 
the issue claiming his attention. 

He resented the ironical touch in the last paragraph under 29 
— why did he not discuss the fifth paragraph? He is very ver- 
bose in treating points of faith, and such matters that are within 
themselves secondary and harmless; but when he is asked to ex- 
plain the laws which teach that papists have the right and that 
it is their duty to kill non-Catholics, he remains as silent as the 
grave — absolutely ignores it. As a witness on the stand, he is 
fluent enough on irrelevant questions; but when direct questions 
are put, as in No. 13, and presented in criticism under No. 29, he 
seems only able to mutter "No" before lock-jaw sets in and seals 
his lips till such pertinent, germain facts have been passed ! 

I most earnestly ask that the criticism under No. 29 be referred 
to; read it, then read letter above, November 15, 1917 — it will be 
impressive and instructive to note how he treats a question that 
involves persecuting non-Catholics and taking human life — mur- 
der of fellow-mortals, because they refuse to join an institution — 
the Italian "church" — that can not prove by any rule of evidence 
that even the pope is a real member of it! 

Mr. Farrell does not fail to "call me" if I make an error in a 
date, or seem to make a technical error in minor matters, but he 
refuses to perform the self-imposed duty of answering questions 
pertaining to Catholic faith and practice that involve the lives of 
others. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 15, 1917. 

Dear Sir: You say my answer to 28 "Is open to several pecu- 
liar constructions," and I am willing to agree. 

Most anything is susceptible to "peculiar" construction, and the 
more constructions there are the more peculiar some are likely 
to be. 

My answer to 28 is only open to one sensible construction, how- 
ever, for it is plain on its face;— If necessary to secure redress 
for a wrong he had done a member, we would prosecute a priest 
by appealing to the laws of the land. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 237 

(1) The word "necessary" seems to frighten you into seeing 
things. Well, would you prosecute a priest by appealing to the 
law if that were not necessary to secure redress for a wrong he 
had done you? 

(2) Ever hear of that counsel of the Scriptures — "go not to 
law with thy brother"? 

Very truly yours, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) We meet with the same difficulty here as with the word 
"wicked": the answer to the question is to be determined by what 
may constitute "redress." In my opinion, an adequate redress 
may require a term on the chain-gang, imprisonment, or a seat 
in the electric chair; while some may consider the crime amply 
"redressed" by removing the priest to another parish, secluding 
him for a season in a monastery (when public scandal attaches 
to the case), or shifting him to a new field, or to some other 
country. 

Yes, the word "necessary" frightens me into "seeing things" 
when I view it in the light of Leo's Encyclical, and the Motu Pro- 
prio Decree of Pius X, of recent date ! When a so-called "religon" 
can not square with Holy Writ, Reason, Common Sense and 
Human Experience, it must necessarily protect those who propa- 
gate it rather than those upon whom it is propagated! 

(2) Yes; but nothing there against going to law with "CHILD- 
LESS FATHERS." 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 16, 1917. 
Dear Sir: Numbers 30 and 31 pertain to the same matter and 
in a general discussion as distinguished from question and an- 
swer, should be combined. 

(1) Inasmuch as you have devoted so much space to comment 
on these you must deem them of first importance and it occurs to 
me they should be given place among those matters to be debated 
in that meeting at Macon. Unless you object, therefore, we will 
reserve them for that occasion. 

(2) It is only fair to you, however, to say now, that I shall chal- 
lenge the sense in which you cite Liguori, question your Bauney 
authority, deny both the teaching and the practice you impute to 
the Jesuits and demand your reasons and your proofs for the 
existence of secret Jesuits or Jesuits in disguise. 

(3) I shall also oppose your statistics as incorrect, show your 
comparisons to be illogical and your conclusion unfounded, abjur- 
ing as contrary to the truth, the doctrine, the practice, the inten- 
tion and the fruits you impute to the Catholic church and her 
people, here and abroad, in politics and war, touching liberty, 
prosperity and education. 

And I trust you will advise me if you have the least objection 
to including these in the Macon discussion, for if you have, only 



238 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

say so, as I do not wish anything to interfere with that meeting. 

Very truly, 
JJF/GT J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) Numbers 30 and 31 are important only in so far as they 
throw light in a general way upon the whole question of papalism. 
Mr. Farrell disposes of them in a very unique way — consigning 
them to the "debate," of which, more anon. 

(2) As Ligouri can not be discussed at length in print or in 
public, but must be confined to the confessional, Mr. Farrell would 
find it rather difficult to sustain his challenge — so we will let that 
matter stand as it is. He also says he will "deny both the teach- 
ing and the practice" I impute to the Jesuits; he speaks as one 
who has "first-hand" knowledge of Jesuitism, yet he is writing as 
"Manager" of a LAYMEN'S association — and a "layman" can 
not know any more about the Jesuits than any one else can learn, 
and as to his challenge on this score, he can not make good; 
whether or not the person writing as "J. J. Farrell" is a secret or 
disguised Jesuit priest, he would not debate. 

As to Bauney: that is merely a paraphrase of the Canon Law, 
which says: "The Holy Office also declared that it is not lawful 
for Catholics to be present at the sermons, baptisms, and mar- 
riages of heretics and schismatics ; but if they go for some lawful 
reason, without any communion in sacris, and if such a going is 
not held to be professing a false religion, it is in se an indifferent 
act." The law also "forbids Catholics to go to the temples of 
heretics for the purpose of assisting at their worship or of hear- 
ing their sermons." This law is the essense of the Bauney citation. 

Mr. Farrell would demand my reasons and proof as to the ex- 
istence of secret Jesuits. Man alive ! The order was given a new 
lease on life after it had been consigned to the boneyard, because 
its very nature, as shown by historians, forces it to make unending 
warfare against Protestantism, popular government, free speech, 
press, school and conscience. And who ever heard of a "war" where 
spies and alien enemies did not peregrinate and become as chame- 
lions? The founder of it was a played-out Spanish soldier, and 
it is but natural that its principles should follow the line upper- 
most in his mind, incorporating the actuating principles of army 
usage and custom as to discipline, etc.; hence we find, according 
to Nicolini, that the Jesuit Constitution, Part VI, chap. I, sec. 1, 
says : "As for holy obedience, this virtue must be perfect in every 
point — in execution, in will, in intellect — doing what is enjoined 
with all celerity, spiritual joy, and perseverence ; persuading our- 
selves that everything is just; suppressing every repugnant 
thought and judgment of one's own, in A CERTAIN OBEDI- 
ENCE; . . . and let every one persuade himself that he who 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 239 

lives under obedience should be MOVED AND DIRECTED . . . 
by his speriors, JUST AS IF HE WERE A CORPSE, which 
allows itself to be moved and led in any direction." Farrell would 
demand my reason — I offer the above, 

Now for proof: Troy fell because of the trick of the Trojan 
horse. Romanism and especially the Jesuit order would die with 
dry rot if it did not make war upon everything Protesantism 
stands for; so we know that if a Catholic can be put in a certain 
advantageous position "under cover," "all things are just" — "the 
end sanctifies the means," and judged by all rules of warfare, 
Rome can be expected to "play the game" this way as well as any 
other, especially when she has cohorts trained for "courtly in- 
trigue," who are as dead men in the hands of the superior to be 
placed where he wills, as a soldier under arms. This is circum- 
stantial and documentary evidence, which a layman can not dis- 
prove, as he can not know; but here is documentary evidence 
direct to the point, according to Greisinger, pp. 670-674; France, 
Austria and Bavaria were all Roman Catholic countries; though 
forbidden the realm, the Jesuits slipped back under the alias of 
"Peres de la Foi" or "Fathers of the True Faith," while they re- 
entered Austria an Bavaria under the name of "Redemptorists." 

In the war the pope waged against Queen Elizabeth of England 
to destroy her, by assassination, according to Hume's History of 
England, two Jesuits — Campion and Parson — were sent from 
Rome to direct those conspirators already on the ground. They 
pretended to be Protestants ; when Parson reached Dover he wore 
the uniform of an English officer, and made arrangements for 
the passage of Campion, whom he represented as being also a 
fellow-officer. 

According to Daurignae, Vol. I, the Jesuits joined the Chinese 
in worshiping Confucius; in India they assumed the role of 
Hindu priests. 

Proof of this kind could be multiplied, but the above is sufficient. 

When pinned down to the doctrine that says no one can be saved 
who are not members of the Roman church, priests say this does 
not mean what it says, but that if any one is saved who has not 
become a member of the pope's church and submitted to his au- 
thority, such are Catholic whether they know it or not; and if 
Rome contends for that principle, does it not open the way for me 
in like manner to conclude that any one — editor, preacher, school 
teacher, lawmaker or private citizen — who aids or abets or fails 
to oppose Romanism, is a Catholic in disguise — a secret Jesuit, 
if you please? This conclusion is so palpably clear, I do not be- 
lieve any Catholic would question it, as this is their course of 
reasoning. 

But let us hit the nail on the head as to secret Jesuits: 'St." 



240 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Liguori teaches: "It is often more to the glory of God and the 
good of our neighbors to CONCEAL our religious faith, as when 
we are living among heretics, we can more easily do them good in 
that way; or if by declaring our religion, we cause some disturb- 
ance or deaths, or even the wrath of the tyrant." — Liguori Theol., 
b. 2, chap. 3, p. 6. 

(3) Mr. Farrell here proposes a job for his champion in the 
"debate." I will say here, I impute no fruits to the Catholic peo- 
ple — they are helpless pawns in the game; all my imputations are 
against the pope and his dogmas, as impressed by the bishop's 
oath. 

The Catholic people are the result of a cause — their general 
attitude toward all civic reform is based upon the spirit of popery, 
which is, don't clean up and drain the miasmic swamp, because 
it breeds mosquitoes and spreads disease which keeps the doctors 
and druggists and undertakers busy; Rome does not permit her 
"children" to take part in general national, state or city moral 
house-cleaning — because that invades the sacred precincts of the 
priests ; why destroy a vice, if it makes one have to keep in touch 
with his father confessor? (Elsewhere I have referred to the 
"children" of the church and the liquor traffic — a damnable busi- 
ness that Cardinal Gibbons has exerted himself to perpetuate; 
here are more statistics and facts for Farrell to wrestle with in 
this connection. In the American Issue, August 17, 1918, Hon. 
James A. Collins, Judge of Marion County, Indiana, Criminal 
Court, who is recognized in Indiana as an authority in the study 
of criminology, stated in an interview printed in the Indianapolis 
News, as follows: "Intoxicating liquors are responsible for the 
downfall of 90 per cent, of all men who go behind the walls of 
penal institutions. The greatest blessing that has ever come to 
this commonwealth was the enactment of the prohibition law.") 

What is true as to Indiana is true of all the States. 

The National Enquirer (Prohibition), July 11, 1918, as well as 
the secular press, carried in part the pastoral letter of Archbishop 
S. M. Messmer, Milwaukee, Wis., forbidding his priests to assist 
in prohibition work, on the plea that it is the work of sectarians 
against the Catholic church: "I hereby positively forbid all 
pastors of parishes in this archdiocese from allowing any prohi- 
bition speeches to be given on any premises, be it for church, the 
school or a hall." Messmer is in strict accord with Gibbons and 
the spirit of papalism. Gibbons is the leading prelate of the 
Roman church in America; if Catholics were in the majority in 
this country, his authority over them would cause the destruction 
of every prohibition law on the statute books — therefore, I repeat 
that the Roman church is opposed to progress, is a bar to Chris- 
tianity, morality and soberness, and a bane to the general welfare 
of human society. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 241 

The test of the pudding is the eating thereof; a tree is known 
by its fruit, and the result of an institution's influence upon its 
own members is conclusive : Romanism seeks to destroy all other 
churches and secret societies — that necessarily implies she has 
something better to offer ; let us see the criminal record in States 
where Rome has an average of only 25 per cent, of the popula- 
tion. According to statistics for 1912-1913, there were 28,541 
convicts in Arizona, California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, 
New York and Rhode Island; of this number, 17,007 were Roman 
Catholics, while 11,534 were from the 75 per cent. non-Catholic 
population. Unless the SYSTEM is inherently and essentially 
bad, a crime-breeder, what's the answer to this? And this thing 
called popery says it alone has the right to the education of our 
youth ! that all education outside of the Catholic church is damn- 
able heresy! this thing says it has the right to use force to en- 
force its decrees! this thing has concentrated all its voters into 
one society and using that as a club with which to brain politi- 
cians unless they give the "children" of that institution approxi- 
mately 80 per cent of all appointments — from judges on the bench 
on down to policemen and firemen, yet rolls its eyes heavenward 
and with folded hands declares it is not in politics ! 

The Canon Law of the Roman church declares the pope to be a 
temporal prince: every Catholic is his subject — and we are let- 
ting the subjects of a foreign power get into every strategic posi- 
tion in our nation, whose chief aim is, to inject the virus of papal- 
ism into every vein of the State and destroy the government that 
protects them from the curse and fruits of their own religion! 
You preachers, editors — Americans, are you secret Jesuits, in 
league against LIBERTY? If Rome could she would cut the 
throat of every Protestant preacher in this land, burn at the stake 
every member of the Masonic fraternity, put the priest at the 
helm of State and wreck our civilization on the shoals of Roman- 
ism. Under the camouflage of Christianity, Rome seeks the de- 
struction of this free Republic as she has wrecked others in the 
past — and unless the common people meet her at the ballot box 
and legislative halls, she will succeed. But to return to statistics: 

The United States Statistical Abstract, a Government docu- 
ment of 1903, on crime in wet and dry territories, shows one mur- 
der in dry to three in wet cities; one arrest for drunk and dis- 
order in dry to three in wet cities; one murder to every 14,513 
people in wet cities and one to 44,020 in dry; one arrest to every 
92 people in wet cities and one to every 299 in dry; but being 
taught to hold black to be white and white to be black if the supe- 
rior authority so declares, priests can say these facts and figures 
are all lies, and the "children" will believe they are till the crack 
of doom. 



242 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

As to priestly denials — Peter began the practice of denying the 
Christ — the popes took up where he left off and kept it up ever 
since; even Farrell denied the First Sacrament of his church — 
Baptism ! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 17, 1917. 
Dear Sir: (1) You should not object that the church "is gov- 
erned largely by expediency in the matter of enforcing her laws" ; 
it was written by St. Paul that "all things are right, but not all 
things are expedient." 

(2) When you say "laws relative to faith," however, you should 
know that laws relate to conduct, not to faith. Truths relate to 
faith, and in her teaching of truths to be held de fide, the church 
is always and everywhere the same. Here the church is seen in 
her divine character, indefectible, incorruptible, infallible, as her 
divine Founder, Jesus Christ, wished her to be. 

(3) In her laws and disciplinary regulations, and in the conduct 
and practices of her children, we see an organization which, 
though great and wonderful, full of wisdom and sanctity and love, 
is human in its workings, and because she is human in these re- 
spects and must work through human agents, to attract to a 
better life human souls, she is, as far as she may be, like St. Paul, 
who was "all things to all men." 

(4) These words of the Apostle show one note of the church, 
her Humanity; his words, "if an angel come down from heaven 
were to teach a doctrine contrary to what I teach, let him be 
anathema" — these show the other note of the church, her Divinity. 
Jesus Christ is a divine Person, with two natures, human and 
divine, which were essential to His mission in the world. His 
church must be a divine institution, and also, have two natures, 
in order to carry on the mission which He began. 

(5) What you criticize, therefore, as reprehensible, namely, the 
church's regard for expediency in the enforcement of her laws, is 
really one of the distinctive merits which in common with the 
Apostles she shares. Yours truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) From further consideration of the matter, it seems the 
church is governed absolutely by expediency instead of "largely." 
The difference between the expediency of Paul and that of the 
Roman church is as great as the difference between light and 
darkness — and the "letter" of the law is liable to kill. Where Paul 
was governed by expediency, it was for the benefit of his weaker 
brother, as in the matter of eating meats that were offered to 
idols; it was lawful or "right" for him to eat it; but if in doing 
so he should become a stumbling block to some one else, then to 
him it was not "expedient" or "profitable"; the Roman Catholic 
church reverses the sense in which Paul used the term, but in this 
that institution is true to its principle in magnifying the "letter" 
of the law while destroying its "spirit"— which is not according 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 243 

to the true precepts of the Gospels. As a follower of Christ, all 
things were right for Paul that were right for Christ or that did 
not conflict with His laws and precepts and where the exercise of 
such right did not hurt his brother or cause him to offend; Rome 
considers "all things are right," or, "the end sanctifies the means,*' 
provided it does not hurt the church, with outsiders. 

Mr. Farrell's argument shows how papalism perverts even the 
Holy Scriptures, and why she keeps subjects of the church from 
reading or placing a private interpretation on them, but must 
accept their meaning as interpreted by the "holy" popes. 

An individual Christian, like Paul, may be governed at times 
by expediency in his personal activities, which is concomitant 
with a free conscience and display of individual, independent 
reason, as for instance, a Protestant preacher may deem he has 
the right to go into a Catholic bar-room and preach Christ or 
exhort — but he would not perhaps deem it expedient, in which 
case, as in that of Paul, expediency determines an individual act 
which in itself could NOT affect the LAW under which he was 
serving, but becomes a matter calling for personal judgment as 
to what is best under certain circumstances. Nowhere in the 
Bible is there the least intimation that any tenet of the Christian 
religion is contingent upon expediency; for if it was, that very 
fact would reverse the whole order of things, and in its final 
analysis render Christ subject to the will of the devil; light would 
be dispelled by darkness, and truth be overcome by error. 

Paul knew it was "right" for him to eat meat, if he wanted it; 
but his weak brother, shortly removed from paganism, did not 
believe it should be done — so Paul did not consider it "expedient" 
to eat; we see Paul again — he is now standing upon the stairway 
of a castle with an angry mob surrounding him (typical of some 
of the mobs of Romanists in America) ; now the principles, the 
Law and the Gospels and tenets of Christianity were to be decided 
by him — his very life as well as all he represented was in the 
balance; did Paul then resort to the "expediency" enjoined by the 
great Catholic Doctor, Liguori, and "conceal" his faith among 
"heretics"? No! Like a true soldier of the cross he "gave a 
reason for the hope" that was within him, and presented one of 
the greatest examples of Truth's victory over Error the world 
has ever witnessed. 

(2) Truths as revealed by God's Word relate to faith in His 
Son; but we are discussing popery now, and I mean just what I 
say. "Faith," declares the Word, "comes by hearing," while the 
so-called faith in the Roman church comes from pope-made law 
and decrees, where the "children" get it as they do citizenship 
when born; hence, being born in the "faith" of Romanism, and 
with all laws being framed to keep them in, it is not erroneous to 
say that laws relate to faith in that system. 



244 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Farrell says that in "her teaching of truths to be held de fide," 
that is, as a matter of faith, "the church is always and every- 
where the same." If popery could substantiate this claim, there 
would at least be a shadow of truth to the claim of being Chris- 
tian; but let us see if the pope's sifter will hold water: 

If Romanism is the true church of Christ and has the right to 
exclude every other religion from the world, then its unity must 
extend to all places and all ages of its existence. Those things 
which were essential at one time, must be so at all times. Does 
Rome present a history of unbroken unity in matters de fide? If 
not, then, "smash!" goes her claim. 

The Greek church is a "split" from the Roman; the doctrine of 
Purgatory has never been known in it, was very little heard of in 
the papal until the twelfth century, but was made a matter of 
faith, de fide, in 1458 — so for fourteen hundre years under the 
popes the Catholic church had no Purgatory; but in the midst of 
the Dark Ages the pope made this dogma an essential of salva- 
tion to Catholics. IS "she everywhere and always the same?" 

In the fifth century after Christ, the doctrine of Transubstan- 
tiation (turning pancake into God) began to be discussed. In the 
ninth century, such eminent Catholic scholars as Bertram, Scotus 
and the Archbishop of Metz were against reviving the discussion. 
In the time of Eutyches (A. D. 50) transubstantiation was rank 
heresy in the Roman church, while about the middle of the elev- 
enth century Berengarius was condemned as a heretic for approv- 
ing it! In this matter of faith, a man would be burned by the 
church for heresy for believing in transubstantiation, while his 
grandson a few years later would be burned as a heretic for NOT 
believing in the dogma! IS she always the same, everymhere, in 
matters of faith? 

For almost two thousand years no anathema was hurled against 
the intellect that did not believe in the Immaculate Conception — 
to-day the pope will "cuss you out" of the church as a heretic if 
you refuse to believe it ! Where's her boasted "unity" in matters 
of faith? 

A variation in essential doctrine will destroy unity : the Council 
of Sirmium, under Pope Liberius, adopted the Arian creed of "half 
communion" — people eating the bread, priests drinking the wine 
— which was later abandoned and declared heretical, but finally 
adopted as now used. Where is unity, and the presumptive infalli- 
bility of popery in defining matters de fide? 

"The church is always and everywhere the same," says Farrell. 
History records how papal armies moving on papal money, under 
papal officers, ravaged papal countries, butchering the "children" 
of the church; especial attention is called to Pope Julius II, at the 
dawn of the sixteenth century, leading in person his soldiers 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 245 

against his "children." In front of Ravena a French cardinal 
was fighting in the front ranks, while another cardinal was as 
furiously assailing him from the ranks led by the pope. A com- 
bination of spiritual and carnal things, which destroys the boast 
of Christian unity. 

Unity which must be maintained by force may be unity — but 
not Christian unity. Bellarmine, in Book 3, chap. 22, on the 
Laity, declares "as the church has ecclesiastical and secular 
princes, who are her two arms; and therefore when her right 
hand is unable to convert a heretic with the sword of the spirit, 
she invokes the aid of her left hand, and coerces heretics with the 
material sword," proving the efficacy of this means by saying 
"for the Donatists, Manicheans, and Albigenses were routed and 
annihilated by arms." (The pope secured "unity" of faith here, 
in obediencce to the "letter" of Christ's "must," by destroying 
those who did not accept his de fide definitions!) If Rome ever 
used force to maintain unity, it is not Christian unity, and Far- 
rell's boast dies; not only is history replete with evidence of such 
efforts to maintain unity, but the principle is in the fundamental 
law of the pope's institution, to be applied the day it becomes 
expedient. Is that Christian unity? 

From the pope on down the line including the newest "convert" 
to the "true" faith, a binding oath must be sworn! "The unity 
whose bond is in official oaths is not the unity of Christ." 

Paul was willing to "become all things to all men," like his 
Master; he taught that his body was the temple for the indwelling 
of the Holy Spirit which would prevent him from becoming any- 
thing incompatible with the One who commissioned him to teach ; 
while he, in ignorant zeal, persecuted the Christians even unto 
death, after his conversion he would not again commit murder or 
be a party to it, to "attract to a better life human souls," as 
Italian popery teaches ; he would not, in order to win some, deny 
his Christ, as Farrell denied Baptism, and as the Catholic priests 
did in India and other pagan lands. Paul "became all things that 
he may win some"; that is, as a member of the Jewish Sanhedrim, 
being learned in the law, he could become as Jew to the Jews and 
preach Christ to "win some"; as a free-born Roman citizen, he 
could stand before Agrippa the King of the Romans and become 
as a Roman speaking to Romans, to "win some" to Christ. He 
never sneaked in among any people under disguise and become as 
their pagan priests in an effort to make them Christians without 
their knowledge or consent by baptizing them secretly, as did 
papal priests ! 

I will admit that the Roman church, having a human head, is 
absolutely "human in its workings," but its record of fifteen cen- 
turies of turmoil and bloodshed, being "human in these respects 



246 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

and must work through human agents" will not "attract souls to 
a better life." 

I do not think Paul would become an advocate of the liquor 
traffic, as Cardinal Gibbons— the business that is the parent of 
the brothel, gambling den and dance-hall, misery, degradation, 
ignorance, crime and vice, that he may "attract some to a better 
life." Paul would not set up the confessional "to win some" and 
destroy many! An agent of the devil will sponsor these things 
that he may "attract some" dollars to the coffers of popery by 
direct gifts from such institutions of crime, and the rich harvest 
in the way of taxes reaped from "absolutions" and other papal 
graft levied on the people for their sins ; the more sins committed, 
the more business for the "human agents" of the pope ! 

The devil could quote Scripture even to Christ — but He would 
not let him INTERPRET it for Him! 

(4) The Roman church, in its faith and practice, reminds one 
of the story, "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde," in its faith and practice; 
Christianity as the Rock of Ages — changeless. 

While Christ took up His abode among men, His human nature 
was manifested only by His expressions of joy and sorrow, hun- 
ger, thirst, weariness, etc. ; He never partook of the Original Sin 
of Adam's race — He did not have to repent; He came to pay man's 
debt for sin — to redeem HUMAN nature, and had He been pos- 
sessed of that human nature Farrell seems to imply, HE COULD 
NOT HAVE PAID MAN'S DEBT, and set the captives free. 

(5) Paul never resorted to expediency in enforcing the laws of 
Christianity as laid down in the Bible, neither in regard to the 
work itself, or his relation thereto; he would not deny his faith, 
as the papists do, not even to escape persecutions and stripes and 
dungeons; his mission was to preach Christ and Him Crucified, 
leaving the results to God; had the human nature of Christ as- 
serted itself when before Pilate, there would have been a different 
story to tell — by papal expediency He could have escaped Gol- 
gotha. 

Christ was hungry — his human nature called for bread; the 
devil suggested that He turn stones into bread and eat: He had 
the power, the craving, but His divine nature refused to heed 
even a suggestion coming from the devil ; again, the devil tried to 
resort to expediency to gain submission, suggesting that if the 
Master would cast himself as a human being from the highest 
pinnacle of the temple, the angels would preserve him from hurt, 
which would be a great miracle in the eyes of the world — and sub- 
mission to satan ; the proposition may have appealed to the purely 
human nature of The Man, but not the spiritual. What a con- 
trast here of the Christ and the Roman church with her lying 
wonders and miracles! 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 247 

Farrell says that "the church's regard for expediency in the 
enforcement of her laws is really one of the distinctive merits 
which in common with the Apostles she shares." 

Christianity is governed by PRINCIPLE. 

Romanism is governed by EXPEDIENCY. 

Christianity is anchored forever to the Rock of Ages. 

Romanism drifts with every variable wind of papal dogma ! 

Christianity says, "Render unto Caesar the things which are 
Caesar's, and unto God the things which are His." 

Romanism says, "Render unto the pope the things which are of 
the world, and he will take care of the things which belong to 
God." 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 17, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Your notion of the Ne Temere Decree is laughable. 
Whatever made you imagine it is retroactive in effect? 

By the way, have you read this decree? Of course you have not, 
or you would not have perpetrated that "retroactive" bull. Only, 
one would think that before venturing to construe a writing or to 
fathom its intention, or to analyze its bearings on "social, civic, 
commercial and political life," or to draw parallels from internal 
disturbances of foreign countries to illustrate its workings, one 
would at least read the thing. 

One ought to do this as a matter of caution if not of conscience, 
for it is a decided advantage to know what one is talking about 
before one talks too much. For example, had you read the Ne 
Temere Decree, these words would have arrested your attention — 
"Decretum quibus sponsalium et matrimonii disciplina in pos- 
terum regeretur" — Decree by which the discipline of engagements 
and marriage is to be regulated in the future. 

This is the official text with the authorized English rendering. 
I imagine you are just game enough to join in the laughter. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

Mr. Farrell says my notion of the Ne Temere decree is laugh- 
able; well, let him laugh, for he has had very little to appeal to 
his risibles, so far! But let us see. 

The original law as to marriage as adopted by the Council of 
Trent (a council called to try to "reform" the papal church at the 
time of The Reformation), Sess. xxiv, cap. i, reads: "Those who 
attempt to contract matrimony otherwise than with the presence 
of the parish priest . . . and before two or three witnesses, the 
Holy Synod makes them altogether incapable of contracting, and 
declares such contracts null and void." 

The Decree Ne Temere is a document which in a general way 
enforces the above LAW, which had not been put in operation in 
all the American States until it was published in 1908, and was 
in effect retroactive in that it presumed to abolish marriage as 



248 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

provided by the civil law of the land, and was retroactive in effect 
right here in Macon, Ga., where a Catholic man on his death-bed 
required his wife to submit to re-marriage after living together 
under civil marriage fifteen years; retroaction is a practice not 
unknown to popery : Hildebrand's decree, demanding priestly celi- 
bacy, applied to the men who were later to become priests, while 
those who were married had to forsake wife and children; the 
pope had the remains of John Wycliffe dug up, brought before a 
solemn council and formally tried and convicted of heresy, and 
had his bones consigned to the flames — some retroaction which 
"is laughable." 

In declaring he is God's vice-gerent, the pope claims jurisdic- 
tion over all men, especially all baptized persons of any and all 
denominations called "heretical," and that he has the right to use 
force to secure their submission to his decrees ; and while the Ne 
Temere decree of Pius X may in itself be an order respecting mar- 
riage in the future, said decree does not nullify the Canon Law 
as in part above set out; it is merely an order requiring the ob- 
servance, in part, of the original law; and when I refer to the Ne 
Temere decree I have in mind more especially the Tridentine Law. 

The marriage law of the Roman church is retroactive in effect 
in all things that it touches. In a famous legal case in Georgia, 
the late Hon. Judge Emory Speer disqualified as presiding judge, 
because Roman Catholicism was at the bottom of the case, and he 
had a Roman Catholic wife — its effect was retroactive. 

It is retroactive in effect in that when a non-Catholic marries a 
Catholic, an agreement has to be signed pledging not to interefere 
with the free exercise of faith of the Catholic, pledging that all 
children from the union shall be brought up in the Catholic school 
and religion; this is retroaction personified in that it swears away 
from the child that which God decreed thousands of years before 
it was born — a personality, and the right to a free mind and con- 
science. 

This decree is retroactive in effect, in that if any one should 
presume to marry without the presence of the parish priest, such 
would only be legalized concubinage, while the fruits of such 
union would, according to the law of the church, be bastards, 
which would leave the children of parents married before its pro- 
mulgation in a very unhappy plight in the eyes of those coming 
afterward ! 

It is retroactive in effect, in that all those who are related to a 
Catholic feel in duty bound to maintain "peace" in the family, not 
only permit such Catholic relative to enjoy the "faith," but must 
assist in all things as far as possible to propagate it, or surrender 
their principles by not resisting popery in general, which tends to 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 249 

destroy liberty and progress, and the fundamental principles of 
the American Government. 

If anyone now feels inclined to laugh, I am just game enough 
to join in. Did Mr. Farrell know what he was "talking about" 
when he denied Baptism? And has he, in any one of his letters, 
shown any desire to assist one to know what they ask about? 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 19, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You say that a leaflet I sent you quotes Cardinal 
Antonello, Prefect of Rome, in reference to the Ne Temere de- 
cree. (1) 

(2) You did not know, of course, that Cardinal Antonello (or 
Antonelli), Prefect of Rome, died almost a century before the 
Ne Temere, in 1811, while the last cardinal of that name died in 
1876. The leaflet quotes Antonelli in reference only to civil duties, 
and the Ne Temere reference is wholly apart from that subject, 
is in separate quotation marks and on the opposite side of the 
page. 

(3) Your quotations from Leo XIII in this connection are be- 
side the question. He did not issue the Ne Temere. Cite Pius X 
©r Benedict XV and you can get somewhere. For the Ne Temere, 
you should remember, is not a dogma but a discipline, which does 
not involve the infallible magisterium; therefore, it dates from 
the date it is given and is only as broad as it says. 

(4) But it says, in the words and figures which follow, that 
"Non-Catholics, whether baptized or unbaptized, who contract 
among themselves are nowhere bound to observe the Catholic 
form of betrothal or marriage." Acatholici sive baptizati sive 
non baptizati, si inter se contrahunt, nullibi ligantur ad catholi- 
cam sponsalium vel matrimonii formam servandam.) 

(5) If this decree is not satisfactory to a non-Catholic, then, it 
must be because he wishes Catholics bound to observe a form of 
marriage to suit him; what do you say? 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) As will be observed, there is a cut-off rule closing the dis- 
cussion of Question 32 at that point; what follows, are notations 
as a sort of appendix. It will also be noticed that where I refer 
to Cardinal Antonello, I do not mention the Ne Temere decree 
at all. 

(2) As every paragraph on the leaflet in question is in "sepa- 
rate quotation marks," and at the bottom of each side is printed 
"over," and as the name of the cardinal is appended at the foot 
of one side, this seems then on its face to be an effort to mislead. 
However, the name is immaterial; the statement as to marriage 
which it contains is placed against the statement of Leo XIII, as 
to marriage — the slip, a nondescript, unsigned statement, against 
a pope! 



250 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

(3) My reference to what Leo said deals with the original 
Canon Law of the church on marriage. No reference in this note 
is made to the Ne Temere decree, which subject came to an end 
with the rule under 32. And those notes speak for themselves; 
the Ne Temere may be a disciplinary measure or order as to mar- 
riage, but it is based upon the dogmatic decree of the Council of 
Trent, on which Leo based his position in his Encyclical cited — 
which can not be changed. 

Mr. Farrell says : "Cite Pius X or Benedict XV and you can get 
somewhere. For the Ne Temeret, you should remember, is not a 
dogma but a discipline." (A discipline relating to a dogma.) 
Marriage having been made a sacrament in the papal church, is 
a dogma, and Romanists are taught that it must be contracted 
according to the law of that church to be "lawful"; and a discip- 
linary measure, like the Ne Temere, is only to indicate to what 
extent, at different times and places, the LAW itself is to be ob- 
served; therefore, I can get beyond "somewhere" by citing THE 
LAW instead of any decree by Pius X or Benedict XV, unless 
they should issue a "Motu Proprio" decree ANNULING the origi- 
nal LAW, which has not been done up to this time. Citing from 
that original Canon Law, the following makes the subject clear; 
says Taunton: 

"(2) Marriage, according to Canon Law, can exist in three 
states : 

"(1) Natural marriage, which is formed between persons UN- 
BAPTIZED and bound by no civil laws. 

"(2) Civil marriage, which exisits between persons UNBAP- 
TIZED but living under civil laws. 

"(3) Ecclesiastical marriage, which is between BAPTIZED 
PERSONS" (all non-Catholic Christians are "Baptized Persons") 
"or between persons one of whom at least is baptized. This mar- 
riage is denned: 'A sacrament between baptized persons by which 
a man and woman, capable by natural and ecclesiastical law, are, 
with mutual consent, bound by a single and indissoluble matri- 
monial contract.' By the institution and will of Christ the con- 
tract and the sacrament are inseparable. Hence, what is 
WRONGLY CALLED CIVIL MARRIAGE— that is, a marriage 
which is contracted in defiance of the law of the church" (as 
among Protestants) "which profanes the nuptials consecrated by 
Christ, LEGALIZED CONCUBINAGE, and attempts to destroy 
the sacramental nature of the contract — IS ALTOGETHER UN- 
LAWFUL, as being against the very essence of matrimony among 
BAPTIZED PERSONS. This does not mean that the State, as 
at present constituted" (that is, while separated from the papal 
church) "can not lawfully make such civil laws as are necessary 
to secure those civil effects of the matrimonial contract which 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 251 

now are beneath its laws. But it can not LAWFULLY make any 
statutes which destroy the nature of the sacramental contract or 
impede the JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH in sacred mat- 
ters," p. 422. This is but a paraphrase of the law on marriage 
adopted by the Council of Trent, which declares that marriage 
contracted otherwise than in the presence of a papal priest is null 
and void. 

The canon law on any subject is superior to a decree issued 
relative to its enforcement. For instance, the canon law declares 
the pope is Bishop of all baptized persons, and that he has the 
right to use coercive measures to secure submission to his juris- 
diction ; whether or not he may deem it expedient to issue a decree 
relating to this right as Bishop of all Protestants, does not affect 
THE LAW — it is unchangeable; likewise, in regard to marriage, 
being bishop of all the baptized, they are all subject to his law 
concerning matrimony; and if he does not exact such observance 
by "ALL the baptized" it is merely because "the State, as at pres- 
ent constituted," is a barrier, which has the effect only of pre- 
venting the papal church from enforcing all her rights, which 
rights the pope merely holds in abeyance or suspends until the 
reverse can be instituted. 

In stigmatizing marriage under civil law as "LEGALIZED 
CONCUBINAGE," indicates that Leo XIII understood the fun- 
damental law of his institution relative to any subject, upon which 
everything contained in his Encyclical Letters were based. 

The following is quoted from the "Manual of Christian Doc- 
trine," pages 494, 498: 

Qu. "34. What right does the civil power possess in regard to 
marriage ? 

"It has no right except over the civil effects of marriage; that 
is, it has NO CONTROL except over the SETTLEMENT of the 
PROPERTY of both parties, the succession of the children, and 
other like effects that pertain to its authority. BUT IT HAS 
NO RIGHT EITHER TO DECLARE VALID A MARRIAGE 
THAT IS NULL IN THE EYES OF THE CHURCH, or to pro- 
nounce null a marriage that is really valid." 

Qu. "46. When did the new Marriage Legislation according to 
the decree of the Congregation of the Council go into effect?" 
(The Ne Temere Decree.) 

Ans. "It went into effect Easter Sunday, 1908. 

"50. What, then, do the faithful need to know about present 
marriage legislation?" 

Ans. "1. NO marriage is VALID unless it is performed by a 
priest duly authorized, and before at least two witnesses; 2. A 
marriage performed between two Catholics, or between a Cath- 
olic and a baptized non-Catholic, by a civil magistrate, alderman, 
notary public, or Protestant minister, IS HENCEFORTH NULL 
AND VOID; 3. No marriage is licit or legal unless performed by 



252 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the pastor of the bride or a priest designated by him or the bishop 
of the diocese." 

The Canon Law of the church and this papal school book teach 
that no marriage is lawful or valid unless it is contracted before 
a papal priest. Protestant marriages are considered only as "a 
custom" allowed by civil law, or "legalized concubinage," which 
means that the laws of the land are not recognized by papists, 
who are taught to look upon non-Catholics as practicing "legal- 
ized concubinage"! 

Being an institution actuated entirely by "expediency," the 
pope can issue a decree to fit any circumstances over which he has 
lost control, as a means of eventually regaining his "rights." If I, 
being a baptized person, and baptism per se makes the pope my 
bishop, then any law to which a Romanist submits is equally bind- 
ing upon me, the only difference being this: the Romanist ac- 
kuowledges such jurisdiction, while I repudiate it; the law of the 
papal church says that the State "LEGALIZES CONCUBIN- 
AGE" which "IS ALTOGETHER UNLAWFUL," in not forcing 
me to go before a papal priest to be married. 

If the pope issues a decree saying that such-and-such law is to 
apply ONLY to ROMANISTS in certain sections of the world, 
that decree proves TWO POINTS: First, in obeying such, a 
Romanist acknowledges the legislative and directive power of the 
pope over his mind and conscience; and second, that the pope can 
just as easily, when it may seem expedient, withdraw the regula- 
tory DECREE and enforce the ORIGINAL LAW, and, with the 
threat of excommunication, force all his subjects throughout the 
world to take steps to put it in force, just as the Catholic priests 
and bishops in Ireland pledged the "faithful" of that land to resist 
England in the Great War, such resistance to take any form nec- 
essary to render the attitude of the Catholic church's political 
activities and plans in Ireland effective. Therefore, we are to 
judge the Roman church by what its laws give it the right to do, 
and not by any decree modifying their observance for the time 
being; so, also, this rule applies to a member of that church: he is 
to be judged by what his church-law requires of him when "expe- 
dient" and not by what he is or says he is while awaiting direc- 
tions from his pope. Being made by law, he is governed by law ; 
this is plain, logical, and conclusive, and nothing a priest or bishop 
or cardinal may say can alter a law of the church; in Protestant 
lands, they may say they acknowledge Protestant marriage as 
"legal" — never that it is "lawful" — but what they say and what 
the law of the church says must be in harmony, to be true. This 
principle applies to EVERY law of the Roman church ; and as the 
pope can dispense with the observance of any law for what he 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 253 

may consider a "just cause" for the present, so he can also enforce 
any law when in his judgment it can be done. 

No doubt this is why Priest Phelan declared that the Roman 
Catholic church would give no bond for its "good behaviour." And 
why John Wesley said no Catholic should be given the rights of 
citizenship in any country not Catholic. 

(4) This paragraph shows the sifting sands upon which the 
Roman church stands, and destroys its boasted "unity." Mar- 
riage, being made a sacrament in that institution, is something 
essential to salvation; and by implication, in letting the Catholics 
of the United States go on centuries without requiring them: to go 
to the priest, says that in Spain Christ demands one thing as nec- 
essary to eternal life, but in America another. It may be laugh- 
able to recall that when the pope ordered the Ne Temere to be en- 
forced in this country, he sent the same order to Germany; that 
Government gave him about forty-eight hours to withdraw it — 
and he withdrew! One man-god backing another man-god off 
the board ! The law as to marriage was applied in some cities, in 
some states. The decree of the Council of Trent has been in force 
in some American centers long before Pius X or Benedict XV 
were born; in New Orleans, San Francisco, part of Utah, Santa 
Fe,Vincennes, St. Louis, St. Genevieve, St. Ferdinand, St. Charles 
and other cities. 

This authority of the pope to issue a decree putting in force, 
little by little, laws that were adopted back there in the Middle 
Ages is a menace to any country not Catholic, and a curse to 
countries Catholic. 

By a decree, a pope can upset the whole scheme of Catholic 
existence, as there is nothing fixed that he can not change, if 
expedient. 

(5) What do I say? This: if a pope after hundreds of years 
can put into effect and force a law that was made in the ages of 
the world's darkness under popery, he may as expediency dictates 
attempt to enforce some of the other laws and devastate this fair 
land with human blood — therefore, Congress should pass an Act 
making it treason or a felony, punishable as such, for anyone to 
practice a law in AmeYica, or propagate it on any subject, if it is 
not in accord with the Constitution of the United States. If Con- 
gress will not act, then it is up to the several Legislatures; if they 
will not act, then the question is up to the people at the ballot box 
to keep Romanism out of touch with politics and law-making and 
administering laws and educational institutions of the country. 
For according to Canon Law, the pope is a temporal prince, hence 
Ms followers are subjects of a foreigner — and we are granting 
them what we refuse any other sovereign or king on earth: the 
right to dual-citizenship and allegiance. 



254 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 19, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You say "Hildebrand, in the fourteenth century, 
passed a decree that forced priests and bishops to put away their 
wives and children — although he kept his concubines." 

(1) But Hildebrand lived in the eleventh century, not the four- 
teenth, and councillar decrees of celibacy had been passed many 
centuries before that, beginning with the Council of Elvira, in 
295, followed by Ancry (314), Rome (386), Orleans (438), Tours 
(567), Trullo (692), and others, long before Hildebrand's time. 
You ought to get at least the main facts right. 

(2) " — although he kept his concubines." I am sure one ought 
to excuse even a gratuitous libel like this, if one knows how, but 
when a great historical character is conspicuous for a splendid 
virtue, the wilfulness that imputes to him a contrary vice seems 
excuseable gross, and one must leave the author of that invention 
to his own defense. 

(3) Some care should be exercised even when attacking popes, 
if not for the sake of truth, then, lest malice betray ignorance. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) A clerical or typographical error in copying or printing is 
seldom a grave matter; Gregory VII, or "Hildebrand," was pope 
from 1073 to 1085. The fact that many efforts were made at 
different periods covering hundreds and hundreds of years to 
keep priests from marrying tends only to accentuate the purely 
human origin of the law which finally culminated in being written 
in the Canon Law at the Council of Trent. Priest and people 
must believe in this law as a matter of faith — and there was no 
unity in the church as regards the question of priestly celibacy 
for many hundreds of years; it required a decree of Infallibility 
for the pope to quell the voice of dissenters among the "faithful" 
— even then hundreds of the "fathers" at the Vatican Council in 
1870 withdrew rather than be a party to such legislation, which 
gave the pope the iron grip of authority. And I believe I have 
the main facts right. 

(Referring to errors: did Mr. Farrell really mean to say "ex- 
cuseable gross"?) 

(2) Eminent historians are responsible for the history of the 
popes ; their word to me is at least as good as Farrell's ! But his- 
tory is not given the whole burden of proof; I will turn to the 
Canon Law of the church, and see if it does not seem to lay some 
foundation for the "presumed" facts of history. 

According to the law, a "cleric" is one "removed from secular 
cares and business, and especially devoted to divine worship or 
service . . . the lower order of the clergy." 

By common law of the church clerics are forbidden : 

"(1) To cohabit with persons of the opposite sex, except SO 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 255 

FAR AS THE LAW OR LEGITIMATE CUSTOM ALLOWS." 

A cleric is exempted "from all power and jurisdiction of secular 
courts," except in English-speaking countries (because such have 
no agreement, yet, with the pope to the contrary) . 

It's a well established maxim that "The servant is not greater 
than his lord," and if the law-giver issues this license to clerics 
where either law or custom allows, and if his power and influence 
is such as to establish law or custom, would it be illogical to say 
that the servant shall enjoy what his lord denies himself? 

A system that, when necessary, requires one to believe black is 
white, or white black, at the will of his superior authority is the 
answer to this paragraph. 

(3) Farrell will admit that the Theology of the Roman Catholic 
church either makes a priest a saint or devil — popes were priests 
first, with a full knowledge of theology; and Hildebrand is said 
by historians to have been one of the most famous or infamous of 
the bad popes. The French Catholic historian, Louis de Cormenin, 
gives him considerable attention, citing other historians as his 
authority. Why does Farrell show white-heat here at the recital 
of Gregory's history? Cardinal Gibbons, as well as the Catholic 
Encyclopedia cited by Farrell, says there were several bad popes 
— "wicked" popes — and as all popes form one unbroken, succes- 
sive chain from the Apostles, supposed to have been chosen by the 
Almighty as His substitutes on earth, we look on the word pope 
as being the head of the Catholic church — his name or the age in 
which he served not being considered, and what one did a thou- 
sand years ago or what one does to-day is the "pope" — the 
OFFICE. The Vatican Decree of Infallibility, it is contended, 
merely announced a fact to the world that existed from the begin- 
ning of the church, i. e., that all popes and councils were infallible 
— that necessarily eliminates the INDIVIDUAL, and creates an 
OFFICE as continuous as that of the Christ, which has the effect 
in fact as if the pope of to-day had served in that capacity two 
thousand years — anything short of that conclusion, to ascribe to 
each separate pope a personal, individual existence as having 
lived at any specified time, would wreck and break down once for 
all the papal successorship of the Apostles, and destroy the claim 
of infallibility. I think an intelligent Romanist will agree to this. 
Now to the point : to admit that the HEAD of the institution, at 
any time, was BAD, proves either that Christianity per se is bad, 
or that papalism is not Christianity. (The Christ said, "Call no 
man father"; is Rome obedient to this in letter or spirit?) 

Catholic historians admit and charge that many popes were bad 
— can bitter and sweet water flow from the same fount? Can a 
tree bring forth good and evil fruit? If a pope is bad, is he not 



256 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the fruit from the tree? And if they were bad, how could they 
lead others to a "better life"? 

Isn't it a peculiar fact, that many Catholic men will take the 
name of God in vain hundreds of times a day, yet to speak lightly 
of a bad pope in their presence is equal to flaunting a red garment 
in the face of a male member of the bovine tribe? 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 20, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You say the law of God must be in "FULL" force at 
all times, in ALL places, under all circumstances." 

(1) Agreed. But your "divisional difference" will not hold — 
that before Christ the "LETTER of the law was sufficient." 
Abraham did not comply with the LETTER when he was sojourn- 
ing with his wife abroad, nor Jacob when he secured his father's 
blessing, nor Moses when he slew the Egyptian, yet were all these 
good men and blessed. 

(2) On the other hand, Moses, though following the letter, did 
not obey the spirit in striking water from the rock, and for that 
he was denied the promised land; and the ancient writings are 
full of instances where one in expressive parlance tried to "put 
one over" on God, but failed to "get by" with it in the end. It was 
true then as now, "The Spirit quickeneth." 

(3) Nor is it correct to say, as an irreformable and universal 
principle, that, since Christ, "both the letter and the spirit, at all 
times, in all places and under all circumstances, must be obeyed," 
for the two not infrequently stand in contradiction when it is im- 
possible to observe both. "Thou shalt not kill" is just now rather 
a dead letter for the embattled hosts of the world. 

(4) You know, Christ said the Sabbath was made for man, not 
man for the Sabbath. It is very much the same with other insti- 
tutions, only one must know what one is about before one starts 
to plucking things by the roadside. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) My "divisional difference" will hold; Farrell is just a little 
confused in his theology. Abraham or Abram (to be correct) 
lived in the Patriarchial period, when each man was the high- 
priest of his own household; Jacob and Moses also lived in this 
period: Abraham was living 900 years before God gave man the 
LAW; when Moses slew the Egyptian, he was living in the pre- 
law period, hence neither one of them could violate the "LET- 
TER" of the law, for they did not have it! 

(2) Here now, we have Moses under the law; and here again 
Farrell runs amuck with his theology. Moses was not obedient 
to the letter or spirit of the law. God said to Moses, "Speak ye 
unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth its water 
but "Moses lifted up his hand and with his rod he smote the rock 
twice." In striking the rock, he was taking upon himself the 
power which God was to display before the people, by causing the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 257 

rock to obey Him through His servant. Neither was this com- 
mand a Law, but the directing Hand of God preserving His people 
on their journey, which ended with the transaction. He was told 
to "speak" to the rock, and in no wise was he obedient to the letter 
or spirit of the command in striking it; otherwise he would not 
have suffered for disobedience, the consequences of which were 
more serious than killing the Egyptian, without the law. (It 
would be well for Romanists to consider this incident; Christ said 
that if He were lifted up, He would draw all men unto Him — His 
commission was, Go preach the gospel — "speak" to the rock; the 
efforts of Romanism to force people into what she terms His king- 
dom at the point of the sword or with fire-brands, using every im- 
aginable instrument of torture that expediency may permit, is 
"striking" the rock — presuming to assume the divine office of the 
Holy Spirit, whose work it is to take the gospel message from the 
servants and plant it as living water in the hearts of men. Christ's 
"must" is to be left to the individual conscience — no pope is given 
the right to use the sword to drive one into Christ's kingdom!) 

(3) The letter and spirit of "Thou shalt not kill" are not only 
just now a dead letter in the scheme of Italian popery, but has 
been a rather distinguishing characteristic of it almost since the 
sixth century. Many of the great wars since the dawn of Chris- 
tianity, including the present great war, can be traced directly 
or indirectly to popery or the principles which papalism stands 
for; and just what will be the fate of soldiers who kill and are 
killed in battle to protect their own homeland, flesh and blood 
from the invader, can be only a matter of conjecture; the same 
principle applies in civil society when a jury finds one guilty and 
exacts the death penalty: is the sheriff or the jury murderers — 
have they violated the spirit or letter of the Law? All human 
society is supposed to be patterned after that law and order which 
obtains in the Great Beyond — God cast the devil and many angels 
out of His realm for disturbing its peace : in like manner, a free 
people enact certain laws defining where the rights of one end 
and those of another begin, and he who oversteps such defined 
rights must suffer for it; Rome teaches this as a "perfect so- 
ciety"; so as to nations in war the same principle, I believe, ob- 
tains ; anyway, God is a God of Mercy as well as of Justice— and 
He loves mercy, and one thing is certain, regardless of the final 
fate of soldiers, the "divine right" theory that brings on wars will 
make popes and kaisers form the very mudsills of hell. 

In the Great World War, the world has the evidence that the 
pope and kaisers worked together — the sword of the kaisers being 
used to extend the "spiritual" (?) domination of popery, while 
the pope's secret spies no doubt assisted the kaiser that he may 
set up a commercial world-supremacy under the pope. 



258 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

It is thought that the concordat signed by Crown Prince Ferdi- 
nand of Austria and the pope to ram Romanism down the throats 
of the Serbian people, which was the beginning of the Great War, 
will prove the death-warrant to papalism. 

As the world settles down after the great battle to count its 
dead; as the crippled go hobbling by; as the widows' tears flow, 
and fatherless children cry from want and grow up bereft of that 
love, care and protection which was theirs by natural right; as 
the chair by the fireside remains vacant while millions of mother- 
hearts bleed and break listening for the foot-falls that will never 
be heard; as little sisters, brothers and sweethearts weep and sigh 
for absent ones; as the whole world looks upon the bodies upon 
the battlefields; — I repeat, after the last great battle and all the 
world settles down to a sober mood, every one of God's creatures 
who have suffered from this Great War, along with the blood from 
many battlefields, will stand as one mighty monument with one 
voice crying to Almighty God to blast popery and "divine right" 
puppets from the face of the earth ! The sight of every Romish 
pagan temple of idol worshipers will but kindle afresh the wrath 
of an outraged world! Every priest and other garbed agent of 
popery as they move about as dark spectres, on the streets, on the 
movie screens, but reminders of the world's arch enemy! And 
every "Angelus" that rides the sound waves of God's ethereal blue 
as but the death-knell to peace, rightousness, and human happi- 
ness! 

(4) So! Farrell admits his theory as to the Sabbath — that is, 
the interpretation required by his church, is applicable to "other 
institutions" — and so I understand! We go to Spain — after the 
priest has edified his parishioners in the confessional and a ser- 
monette on Mary, along with creating and eating his God, then he 
can go and engineer a bull fight for the entertainment of the 
"faithful" on the Sabbath if he so desires; or anything else. 

This admission also calls to mind the Canon Law above cited 
as to clerics cohabiting if "law or CUSTOM" allows. 

One does not have to study very tediously to learn that CUS- 
TOM MAKES LAW with the ROMAN ITALIAN church. This 
explains why nothing but a chaingang sentence could make the 
pope's subjects in Macon obey the prohibition or Sabbath closing 
laws of the State — the custom where they came from, or the reli- 
gion they adhere to, commands their attendance at mass at day- 
break perhaps, after which the rest of the day can be devoted to 
money-making or anything else. (Just note how many papists 
keep their business going every Sunday in your own city ! ) 

If many people in a community keep concubines instead of 
wives, it becomes a CUSTOM, hence equal to being the law, as in 
Mexico ! 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 259 

And this is the institution that stigmatizes our public schools 
as "godless" and strives to get our children under its "moral" 
theology ! 

And, strange to say, there are many so-called Protestants help- 
ing it along! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 20, 1917. 
Dear Sir: (1) Here are the "Divisional Differences" between 
the time before Christ and since : The spirit of the Old Law was 
Justice. The spirit of the New is Love. "Without charity I am 
nothing," says the Apostle. 

(2) Speaking of the Catholic church, Draper, the Protestant 
historian, said : "From her central seat in Rome, her vision goes 
out to the world, her heart takes in the world, and in all the world 
there is not a man too obscure, too lowly or too desolate for her 
protecting care." 

(3) Can you visualize that picture, taking in the long, long 
vista, with its many lights and shadows, reaching back through 
nineteen hundred years? — See the millions who have worshiped 
at the shrines in this perspective, and the millions yet unborn who 
shall come to worship there? — Hear them all, except the wicked, 
never cease to bless the hour they first learned to call her Mother 
in their prayers? 

(4) And, then, talk about the cruelty of the Catholic church to 
her children? Man, you do not know her as a friend knows, but 
as an enemy imagines her to be. 

Yours truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) It will be noted that I have seldom, if ever, raised a strictly 
theological question as such; where referred to, it has been in 
connection with certain principles and laws of this Government 
which it requires Catholics directly or indirectly to oppose. So, 
when Mr. Farrell brings forward matters that have no direct 
bearing on the thirty-two questions (for the Jesuitical purpose 
of leading me away from the direct issues, that he would not dis- 
cuss — which is clear all through his letters, and is the Jesuit 
principle) , I will be pardoned for discussing "religion," I am sure. 

The actuating principle of Christ's teaching is Love. "With- 
out love, I am nothing." In 1 Cor. chapter 13, Paul defines love. 
So imbued was he with that Christian requisite that he said if the 
eating of meats offered to idols caused his brother to offend, he 
would eat no meat. As a Christian (Christ-follower) he could not 
afford to do anything as an individual or as a teacher that would 
cause the less learned or one weak in the faith to stumble, there- 
fore he was careful not to do what was really harmless in his 
desire to win men to the Christ-standard : we turn now to the oath 
Roman Catholic bishops swear when they are "consecrated" (to 



260 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the service of the pope), and we hear him say, "I will, to my 
utmost power, persecute and wage war with" all who refuse to 
submit to papal authority. (Note: In the Canon Law Taunton 
says the pope permits bishops in England to omit that part of the 
oath "Persequar"— perhaps he does ; but the copy of the "Pontifi- 
cate Romanum" I have bears date "MDCCCXCV": 1895, and if it 
is not effective in England, why should it be effective in America? 
in Spain? or anywhere in the world? And right here I will say 
in the language of Mr. A. J. Long: "If the bishop's oath does not 
apply to me as a heretic, it does not apply to any one." (Mr. Long 
did not offer to take me through his priests' library.) If it ap- 
plies to any one in the world, it applies to me — for you know 
"God (!) is no respecter of persons!" As we know, every mem- 
ber of the Catholic church in the various dioceses are under the 
direction and supervision of the pope through his bishops, who 
constitute in part the "power" the bishop swears to use when and 
where expedient to persecute and war on heretics : do we find any 
resemblance in this damnable law to the teaching of the Christ 
or any of His Apostles? NO! Contrast Paul's refusal to eat 
meats, in his desire to keep from the very appearance of evil, so 
that he could win souls to Christ, with the pope's command for 
his "faithful" to PERSECUTE and MAKE WAR on those whom 
Christ died to win, and the monstrosity of the ultra-paganism of 
the papal thing calling itself THE Christian church will be im- 
pressive ! Nowhere in the Gospels do we find Christ authorizing 
His followers to persecute those who would not follow Him ! 
his "faithful" to PERSECUTE and MAKE WAR on those whom 

(Protestant England forced the pope to have that oath modi- 
fied; that's one reason why his subjects in America are trying 
to foment war between that country and America: keep your 
weather eye on the "Irish question.") 

(2) Draper is correct — regarding those who SUBMIT: Mr. 
Wm. E. Gladstone was one of the greatest statesmen England 
ever produced — he wrote: "No more cunning plot was ever de- 
vised against the intelligence, the freedom, the happiness and 
virtue of mankind, than Romanism," while Lord Acton, a Cath- 
olic English Peer, wrote: "Pope Gregory XII decided it was no 
murder to kill excommunicated persons. This rule was incor- 
porated in the Canon Law. . . . Far from being a dead letter, it 
obtained a new application in the days of the Inquisition; and 
one of the later popes has declared that the murder of a Protes- 
tant is so good a deed that it atones, and more than atones, for the 
murder of a Catholic." He also said that this rule "appears in 
every reprint of the Corpus Juris" (Code of Laws). — London 
Times, July 20, 1872. (Acton was a Catholic — not a papist.) 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 261 

(3) Yes, I have contemplated all this as far as the finite mind 
can, "with its many lights and shadows, reaching back through 
nineteen hundred years." Scientists tell us if a cannon should 
be fired in a desert where nothing existed to hear or reproduce 
the sound, there would be no sound: there are some nine or ten 
hundred million Confucianists, Buddhists, Hindoos, etc., who have 
worshiped at "shrines" to be followed by hundreds of millions 
more to come who will do likewise — because they have not heard 
the "report"! If they will not hear, like the Catholic who will 
not listen, I would not, if I could, be a party to FORCING Christ 
upon them: "And I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto Me," 
said the Master; by right living and preaching the Word He is to 
be lifted up before mankind; it is presumptuous for man to ven- 
ture beyond that deadline, as it would be invading the sacred pre- 
cincts of the Holy Spirit whose office it is to woo the heart to 
accept the message of Glad Tidings — the message of God's LOVE, 
and if He will not FORCE a soul to accept His mercies, no mes- 
senger of Christ will attempt to "round up" a human soul at the 
point of the sword or with fire-brands to make the sinsick soul 
"Look and Live," yet this is the irreformable principle of the 
Roman Catholic church, written in its "sacred" Canons ! To this 
I voice opposition. From a religious standpoint, when I have per- 
formed my duty as best I can in holding Him up, my responsi- 
bility ceases; certainly God would not have me employ "FORCE" 
or "PERSECUTE" any one of the hundreds of millions who are 
bowing at the "shrines" of Mary, Joseph, Confucius, Mahomet; 
God will take care of them in His own way — if COERCION is 
used, it must be by Him through His Divine Providence. 

(4) Wrong, here! I do not "talk about the cruelty of the 
Catholic church to her children." The bishop's oath is not directed 
against "her children," but those who refuse to become such! 
And this is the point — the only point. Under the Edict of Nantes, 
Catholics and Protestants were living together in peace; for the 
sake of argument, I will say that Roman Catholicism was Chris- 
tianity, Protestantism heathenism. That edict was revoked: the 
"heathen" knelt as it were, defenseless, with upturned faces to 
"Christ" to be struck in the face with mailed fists; half a million 
men, women and children were made to "vanish from the face of 
the earth" at the hands of the "faithful" children of the papal 
church — yet Paul would eat no meats offered to idols ! 

As a dental surgeon I have had many people under the influence 
of anaesthetics; while in that condition I could have taken out 
their very hearts instead of an aching tooth, so far as they were 
concerned — they did not know, and were incapable of offering re- 
sistance. While under its influence, many went "wool-gathering" ; 
being for the time mentally deranged their visions were distorted, 



262 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

which caused them to imagine all sorts of impossibilities: when 
papalism gets the human intellect fully under its baneful in- 
fluence, it becomes filled with a superstitious terrorism of purga- 
tory and papal "anathema" in which condition the "faithful" are 
powerless and must accept any dogma proposed for belief and 
agree to obey any command the pope issues ; under that influence 
their conscience prompts them to MURDER "enemies" of the 
"holy" mother church rather than display the Christ-precept to 
"LOVE" your enemies and pray for those who spitefully use you! 
IS the Italian church Christian? If so, in what is it shown? 

If all Roman Catholics were to migrate to some far-away coun- 
try where there were no people but Catholics, and would not ad- 
mit a messenger of the Protestant faith into their realms, I would 
then be indifferent to the bloody laws on her books; but they are 
not all in a far country; there are about seventeen millions of 
them right here in America — one out of every six in this land — and 
the laws of the pope decree what they must believe; the laws of the 
pope say what they must do — when expedient; so, when a Roman 
Catholic says he will not be obedient to what the pope commands, 
I determine the truth of his statement by first ascertaining what 
the pope can command him to do, then learn his present attitude 
toward the system : as long as one remains within a certain circle, 
or society, or "church," he is subject to the rules thereof. Not to 
be obedient to the commands of the pope is to be a heretic — and 
membership in the Catholic church is prima facie evidence that 
one is no heretic ! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 21, 1917. 
Dear Sir: When can one be said to be "outside of the church" 
and therefore in the way of perdition? (1) 

(2) In any authorized Catechism you will find substantially 
these questions and answers : What is the Catholic church? All 
the faithful under one head. Who is the Head of the church? 
Jesus Christ, our Lord. 

The catechism teaches also, that the Catholic church is made 
up of the Church Triumphant or the saints in heaven, the Church 
Suffering or the souls in Purgatory, and the Church Militant or 
the Faithful on earth. 

Finally we are taught that the Catholic church is the Mystical 
Body of Christ, of which every human being from Adam to the 
end of time, who lives a conscientious life and dies in the peace of 
the soul, is a true member, in Christ made one with the saints. 

(3) You see, therefore, that the Catholic church has a visible 
and invisible membership and it is humanly impossible to know 
when the dispositions of a man's heart make him a member of the 
invisible fold. Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 263 

COMMENT 

(1)1 turn to the Catechism by Deharbe, sanctioned by two car- 
dinals as being true doctrine and authoritative. The answer to 
Question 64 reads: "Every one is obliged, under pain of eternal 
damnation, to become a member of the Catholic church, to believe 
her doctrine, to use her means of grace, and to submit to her 
authority." This language is clear, concise and conclusive. 

"Every one is obliged under pain of eternal damnation: 

"To become a member" — no provision or room here for an "in- 
visible fold"; 

"To believe her doctrine" — which is impossible where it has 
never been heard — as faith cometh by hearing; 

"To use her means of grace" — many of which were compara- 
tively recently adopted ; 

"To submit to her authority" — according to the Vatican Decree. 

This is what the "children" study — this is what they are taught 
— this is what they believe. It destroys much in this letter under 
consideration ; certainly no one up to the time of Christ was "sub- 
ject to her authority." 

(2) Mr. Farrell for some reason best known to himself, I sup- 
pose, indicates what the Catechism teaches, but does not quote it 
— is he ashamed or dubious of quoting an "authorized" catechism? 

Here is Deharbe: (Qu. 6) "What, then, is the Church even at 
the present time?" Ans. : "The Church is the same congregation 
of all the faithful, who, being baptized, profess the same doctrine, 
partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their law- 
ful pastors under one VISIBLE HEAD, the POPE." Of course, 
to a Romanist, "Jesus Christ, our Lord" and "One visible Head, 
the Pope," may mean the same thing; but Farrell should state 
the facts as they are in print, not as he thinks they ought to be 
in Protestant lands. 

On page 18 of the Catechism I find another question of interest : 
Question "36. Have not the Protestant sects also received their 
doctriie from Christ Himself, and preserved it uncorrupted?" 
Answer: "No." 

One of the most vital questions to non-Catholics is asked and 
answered by the Catechism, page 226: Question "29. Which are 
the Six Sins against the Holy Ghost?" Answer: "1. Presumption 
of Gol's mercy; 2. Despair; 3. RESISTING THE KNOWN 
CHRISTIAN TRUTH; 4. Envy at another's spiritual good; 5. 
Obstinacy in sin; and, 6. Final impenitence." 

Nov, the Bible distinctly declares that there is an "unpardon- 
able" sin, and that it can never be forgiven — if sin is not par- 
doned, the sinner will be eternally damned; and we have just read 
the japal interpretation of what constitutes the unpardonable 



264 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

sin : all who oppose popery with pertinacity of will and intellect 
are heretics, "3. RESISTING THE KNOWN CHRISTIAN 
TRUTH." This doctrine puts all non-Catholics out of the pale of 
God's mercy, hence enemies of God who should be removed from 
earth by death, according to the Italian religion. 

(3) If the doctrine of the papal church was what Farrell here 
intimates, then in the name of Reason I ask, why the numberless 
massacres and murders of those who refused to submit to "her 
authority"? Th&y resisted the known Christian truth proclaimed 
by the pope and — were removed by death, according to the present 
laws of that church ! 

I know that the papal church claims everything, from Adam to 
the toot of Gabriel's horn — in earth, heaven and hell, destroys the 
Judgment Seat of Christ by vesting the pardoning power in 
priests of Rome, seating the pope on the Throne of Grace : but it 
has been quite a task to get Farrell to admit all this in so many 
words. 

"It is humanly impossible to know when the dispositions of a 
man's heart make him a member of the invisible fold," says the 
association; if what it says is Catholic doctrine, then the Catholic 
bookseller who sold me a recent issue of the Canon Law should be 
prosecuted for selling a book that, according to Farrell, is NOT 
the law of the church! But the Roman church does not hold or 
teach what Farrell tells me; like Saul of Tarsus, the laws and 
decrees of that institution fairly breathe out threatenings against 
all other baptized people ! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 21, 1917. 

Dear Sir: So you think that Catholics are taught from tender 
childhood that Protestants and all others but themselves are on 
the way to perdition. 

You could not be more grievously mistaken. The charity of the 
Catholic church is boundless. It extends to all mankind, living 
and dead. Of no one who ever lived are we permitted to sap "He 
is damned." Judas Iscariot is the only one of the human race 
whom this broad mantle of charity does not cover. The Scriptures 
say he is lost. 

(1) But does not the church teach the formula, "Outside of the 
Catholic church there is no salvation," or, as Deharbe p^its it, 
"Everyone is obliged to become a member of the Catholic church 
under pain of damnation"? Yes, but you should know vJiat is 
meant by the "Catholic church," and when one is "outside," or not 
a "member" of, the Catholic church, for here is the nub of the 
whole matter. 

You may see no difficulty in this, but if there were n»ne, it 
would not be a sin against charity for us to say of this one or 
that one who died "outside of the Catholic church," that, like 
Judas, he is lost. Very truly, J 

J. J. Farrell, M^r, 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 265 

COMMENT 

Having put Mr. Farrell's former letter against his Cate- 
chism — which, to my mind, eliminated what he said — I shall try 
to pass this one briefly, reserving its nullification for another 
page in connection with what he has a pope say. As to Judas, or 
who are saved or lost, we are permitted to be as broad or as nar- 
row as the Bible warrants: it says those who believe on Christ 
shall be saved, those who do not shall be lost. 

(1) I know what Mr. Farrell is striving to put in understand- 
able English; what he means to say is, being paraphrased: "Any 
person, anywhere, at any time, who lives a life acceptable to God, 
whether pagan, heathen, or heretic, is a member of the 'invisible' 
department of the Catholic church." Granted, as gospel truth — 
that is, such an one is a member of the "catholic" or "universal" 
church of Christ, but in no sense a member of the "Roman" 
Catholic church. That this is true is proved by the Catechism, 
which ends the question on that subject by saying, in order to be 
saved, one must not only BE A MEMBER, but shall ALSO ''sub- 
mit to her authority." Give him all eternity without interruption 
and still Ferrall would not be able to reconcile this letter, to a 
"heretic," with the Catechism prepared by the pope for the 
"faithful." 

As an evidence of the disagreement between Farrell's letters 
and the Catechism, it is necessary only to remember the many 
centuries that the Italian church employed every means of torture 
to FORCE people to "SUBMIT TO HER AUTHORITY." JUST 
READ THE CANON LAW, TO-DAY! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 22, 1917. 

Dear Sir: (1) You doubt that a Catholic bishop knows his reli- 
gion; would you be better satisfied with the teaching of an arch- 
bishop or a cardinal? 

In 1874, the first Archbishop of America, John Carroll, in an- 
swer to a Dr. Wharton, ex-priest who had charged that Catholics 
are taught that none who are not in communion with them can be 
saved, which is probably the beginning of that error in this coun- 
try, wrote the following: 

"Members of the Catholic church are all those who with a sin- 
cere heart seek the true religion in unfeigned disposition to em- 
brace the true wherever they find it. The distinction between 
being a member of the church and in the communion of the church 
is no modern distinction but the doctrine taught by ancient as well 
as later divines. 

" 'What is said,' says the Cardinal Bellarmine, 'of one being 
saved out of the church must be understood of those who belong 
not to it in body or soul.' It has always been uniformly affirmed 
by our divines that baptism, actual baptism, is essential to in- 
itiate one into communion of the church; but the doctrine is no 
less uniform, and the Council of Trent expressly declares ( Sess. 6, 



266 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

chap. 4) that salvation may be obtained without actual baptism. 
"Thus, then, it is clear that we not only may but are obliged to 
believe that out of our communion (visible) salvation may be 
obtained." Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) When a priest of Rome attends a papal synod or is ordained 
he swears that he will "never interpret the Holy Scriptures ex- 
cept according to the 'unanimous' consent of the holy fathers." 
There are several hundred volumes written by the "holy fathers" 
at different ages and in various countries, which would require 
ten or twelve years for a student to learn upon which texts they 
were "unanimous" and, as illustrated by FarrelFs letters in mat- 
ters pertaining to questions of law and dogma, the student would 
find very few texts or articles of faith on which the "holy fathers" 
were unanimous; he would find instead of Christian unity that 
popes were "damning all" that was done by others, some abro- 
gating all decrees of another, some councils hurling anathema 
against the pope, popes disagreeing with councils; he would find 
theologians disputing about this or that dogma, and some "holy 
fathers" holding with "St." Thomas Aquinas, Bellarmine, and 
Liguori, that heretics should be killed like wild beasts, while a few 
teach a sense of toleration — like Fleury, for instance; he would 
find that one of the holy fathers, a pope, deemed it a sin to be 
looked upon as the supreme head to lord it over that church : like 
Mr. Farrell's letters and the Catholic Catechism and Canon Law, 
there is disagreement without end — consequently few priests ever 
read the holy fathers sufficintly to know much about what texts 
of Scripture they really agree on — if any — all this by way of pre- 
liminary to my answer No to paragraph (1). What a bishop, 
archbishop, cardinal, priest or layman may say must accord with 
the LAW AND DECREES of the popes and the past record of 
the papal church in regard to how they were interpreted and ad- 
ministered, to be the truth in the case ! 

Deharbe's Catechism, along with the Canon Law and history, 
settles this question; it is authenticated by two cardinals, and 
was issued according to the "rules" of the Index for the faithful. 
Leo XIII accentuates and confirms its doctrine as to church mem- 
bership, saying, "Whosoever is separated from the church is 
united to an adulteress." To be a member of that church, or 
"united" to it, according to the Catechism, requires submission to 
the authority of the pope; it seems to wreck the testimony of Car- 
roll and Bellarmine. Christ said, "He that gathereth not with 
Me scattereth abroad," and "He who is not for Me is against Me"; 
He was speaking to LIVE people, THEN AND NOW, who should 
hear Him or His servants anywhere, any time, so the question to 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 267 

be determined is, Who are working with, or against, Him? In a 
major sense the answer to this question solves the matter of who 
are lost or saved — visibly. Is Romanism or Protestantism for or 
against Him? I will be satisfied with no answer unless based 
upon the Word. If reason can be convinced that Christ commands 
His followers to kill those who refuse to "gather" with Him, then 
Romanism can establish the claim of being Christian; if it can 
not be done, then the opposite is logically true. Christ taught, 
among other things, that the tares and wheat should grow to- 
gether to be separated on the Judgment Day by the Supreme 
Judge of the Universe, who alone would be competent to decide 
which may be wheat or chaff, sheep or goats : the pope would pull 
up now and consign to the flames what he terms tares — "heretics." 
I care nothing about the theological hair-splitting of Farrell 
and his theologians on the question of who may or may not be a 
member of the visible or invisible church, or whether one can or 
can not be saved by "actual" baptism, baptism of desire or of 
blood; if one does not hear Christ, he can not experience either, 
in which case that question is to be settled by the Great Judge; 
I am concerned, though, with the teaching of the church, claiming 
to have the right to remove from the earth by death those who 
will not submit to the authority of the pope. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 22, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Some days since, a printed folder, entitled, "BAT- 
TLE AGAINST FREEMASONRY," etc., came to me in the third 
class mail, and from the contents I judge that it must have come 
from you. 

As no authorship is assigned to the paper, however, I am writ- 
ing to ask if you are circulating this folder, and if you are, and 
the matter is not private, in whose interest you are acting? You 
will, of course, see the propriety of these questions from one re- 
ceiving the folder mentioned, and this information will be very 
much appreciated. 

Should you say that you are acting in the interest of the public, 
would you in that case state whether your object is to stir up the 
Masons of Georgia an "sic 'em on" Catholics with a view of "strip- 
ping the Catholic church of her faith and practices," as you say 
the Grand Masters can do if they will only "issue letters" to that 
effect, or whether it is to warn the Masons that the Catholics now 
number almost one in one hundred of the population of Georgia 
and are rapidly growing, on account of the great ignorance of the 
people of Georgia, therefore, they, the Masons, must wake up. 

In short, assuming that you cannot wish to see ill-will cultivated 
among citizens for the mere sport of the thing, I am anxious to 
learn, since you say the Masons in Georgia are so numerous, and, 
through their Grand Masters, so powerful, if you aim to make 
their power absolute, so that none can live in Georgia in peace, 
except the Masons so will. 



268 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

I await your answer to these questions with interest and ex- 
pectation, hoping that you will not withhold same through a fear 
that you surrender anything by being candid and free. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

The folder referred to contained Question No. 4, the associa- 
tion's answer, and my criticism, etc., which was placed in the 
hands of a number of prominent Georgia Masons; Mr. Farrell 
does not "call" me on its contents, but desires to know what's the 
idea. 

Incidentally, I may say I was not entirely instrumental in its 
publication and distribution, yet willing to accept all responsi- 
bility therefor, if that is material. 

In a periodical called the "Mission Movement in America," 
published in 1909 by the Roman Catholic University of America 
at Washington, D. C, the heart of the nation, this statement was 
made: 

"Our purpose is, to make America dominantly Catholic.** 

In an address before a large audience of Catholics in a con- 
vention, Bishop McPhaul said: 

"The American Federation of Catholic Societies has been or- 
ganized to bring the powerful influence of the ENTIRE Catholic 
church in America against the injustice of the public school sys- 
tem." 

(The injustice he spoke of was in the matter of levying taxes on 
Catholics with all others to maintain the free public school sys- 
tem, which Farrell said they willingly supported. They "wil- 
lingly" support free public schools in America just as a man 
"willingly" supports his wife — where the law makes him provide 
alimony. Catholics contend it is an injustice to tax them for sup- 
port of public schools, as they pay to maintain their parochial 
schools; that instead of their paying the State taxes, the State 
should put papal teachers and schools on its pay-roll. To attempt 
to operate along this line would mean placing education in the 
hands of each separate sect, leaving the non-church man to look 
out for his class, which would mean that education was every- 
body's business, hence nobody's — and the pope would rejoice for 
at the last it would wind up by making America what illiteracy 
has made of Spain, or the Philippines.) 

In a speech delivered in Chicago May 4, 1903, as quoted in the 
Chicago Tribune, May 5, 1903, the late Archbishop Quigley, of the 
diocese of Chicago, said: 

"In fifty years Chicago will be exclusively Catholic. The same 
may be said of Greater New York, and the chain of big cities 
stretching across the continent to San Francisco. . . • Nothing 
can stand against the church. I'd like to see the politician who 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 269 

would try to rule against the church in Chicago. His reign would 
be short indeed." 

McPhaul and Quigley stated the true program of the Catholic 
church in America — which would indeed "Make America Domi- 
nantly Catholic" were it rendered as prepared; and to carry out 
even in part the program requires the militant, active support of 
not only the one-in-six Catholic population of the country as a 
whole, but also the "almost one-in-one-hundred of Georgia," who 
are required to do what they can, to muzzle the free press espe- 
cially, so that the above program can not be commented on ad- 
versely in any manner; to silence the press is the first number on 
the program; the next is, cow editors so they will always say 
something "nice" about papalism, or say nothing at all, and seal 
their columns against the discussion of any phase of the papal 
program; I recite one instance by way of illustration: A mob of 
Catholics, ten thousand strong, assaulted people in Haverhill, 
Mass., made an attack on the city hall and tried to secure the 
speaker, wrecked other property, maimed people, hung and burnt 
free speech in effigy, but not a word about it gets in the columns 
of the press outside the immediate community, although it was an 
attack on the Constitutional rights of the people, and was a mat- 
ter of national interest and concern — as imporant and serious as 
the landing of hostile troops on our shores to pull down the flag 
which is entitled to honor and reverence only as long as the prin- 
ciples safeguarded by it are preserved, yet the press kept silent, 
but space can always be found to print the views of such papists 
as Gibbons against American laws and progress, and all other 
things papal, right in the heart of non-Catholic centers, where 
there are "almost one in one hundred" only who are interested in 
papal lore! 

Another number on the program is, the attack on the free 
public school system — a dead press and wrecked free school sys- 
tem is equivalent to "Making America Dominantly Catholic" and 
prevents anyone from ruling against the Catholic church. 

The papal program was prepared with painstaking care, and 
being rendered effectively in part. Long ago, we learn of papal 
priests in India — it required considerable effort for them to con- 
ceal from the people that they were really what they were — for- 
eigners: to-day, in America, they are having the same difficulty: 
to prevent the people from knowing that they are really what 
they are, foreigners to everything Amrican, they have assumed 
the camouflage of "Laymen's Association" under which disguise 
they hope to ply their nefarious trade of papalizing this country, 
by slipping up on the blind side of Protestantism. In all this 
grand papal program, however, no provision seems to have been 
made to dispose of, or take into account, the spirit of free, Ameri- 



270 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

can manhood. Cripple or destroy our leaders, kill every natural 
agency through which a free people expect to defend and maintain 
their freedom, if they will ; that only means the beginning of the 
fight, when every individual will constitute himself his own cap- 
tain in the fray and direct his "fire" in the ranks when and where 
he chooses. 

Freemasonry, as far as I have observed, squares with human 
reason and the Word; being "square" it can not be driven into a 
round hole, therefore must be "extirpated." Masons generally 
do not know the "intention" of papalism regarding the order, and 
this is also true relative to Protestantism (the papal cohorts have 
admirably concealed from the people that the papal church is 
foreign in every sense — in fact, comparatively few Protestants 
even know the difference between Romanist and Protestant) , be- 
cause if Masons or Protestants were to discuss these things in the 
press, the paper would be boycotted, and the proprietor usually 
goes the way of least resistance ; as a rule Americans do not know 
that the Italian church demands submission or annihilation. 

Just in proportion as the influence of the Roman church inter- 
feres, or attempts to interfere, with the constitutional rights and 
liberties of American citizens, to that extent will they accept the 
challenge to defend such rights, and do their duty. Americans 
never act in matters of importance for the "sport of the thing" 
nor do they ever attempt to "sic 'em on," but rather make it their 
business to defend their rights, and will "lead" against the sub- 
jects of any foreigner who attempt to destroy their birthright. 

Though "almost one in one hundred in Georgia," the head of 
that institution defied the laws of the State, and its incubus, the 
parochial schools, does not tend to make citizens who would con- 
demn Bishop Keiley for his attempt to render papal law superior 
to the laws of the State. 

Standing before the world as a "perfect society," with its head 
in the Vatican, the Roman Catholic church segregates its votaries 
from the rest of mankind and then demands that the reins of 
government be placed in their hands: the present great war has 
presented much that is illuminating, which will be taken care of, 
after it is over ! The American people never fail to do their duty 
— if they are made to see it ! 

Few people would consider a man sane had he made the asser- 
tion several years ago that Rome was strong enough, politically, 
in America to exert an influence sufficient to bar Masons and 
Protestants from cantonments where they were overwhelmingly 
in the majority; that this was accomplished, while Catholicism 
was recognized and given the right-of-way, yet having only one- 
in-six of the total population, and through Jesuitical manipula- 
tion the eighty-three in one hundred were virtually forced to con- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 271 

tribute millions of dollars to the support of Italian popery in its 
proselyting among soldier-boys has knocked a few scales from the 
eyes of Masons and Prostestants — and they will not grow back! 

To establish Democracy in Europe, America is paying the 
price; to maintain a free, popular government at home, Ameri- 
cans are willing to meet Autocracy anywhere, any time : they will 
give the "divine right" rulers and advocates the choice of weapons 
yet come out of the conflict winners ! 

All of which by way of reply to the above letter. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 23, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Your statement in the folder mentioned in my letter 
of yesterday, assuming until advised to the contrary that the 
folder is yours, to the effect that you think of putting our corre- 
spondence from the beginning into pamphlet form, attracted me. 

This would be quite an undertaking, in a way, involving no lit- 
tle expense, which, if the matter is fairly edited and generally 
distributed, ought to be borne by both of us, in proportion of 
course, to the matter each of us put in and the pamphlets each 
received. 

I offer, therefore, if the arrangement and proper redaction of 
the matter can be agreed on, and a suitable foreword be inserted, 
with standard references to be made where necessary, that we 
get out this pamphlet in conjunction, having it include all or so 
much of our exchanges as either of us wishes to appear and by 
that I mean all of my letters that either of us wishes to include 
and vice versa as to yours, each bearing the expense of his own 
matter or in that proportion, each taking half the number of 
pamphlets agreed on. 

In this way the public would get a document edited in a per- 
fectly fair way and presented without that friction that appears 
to exist when two sides are presented independently, and without 
that bias that must accompany the presentation of both sides 
through the partial medium of one. 

You might select your own printer to do the work, I would not 
care about that. My sole object is to have the matter properly 
presented to the public, so that hurried people will not jump at 
rash conclusions and reflecting people will not need wait for an- 
other side to draw conclusions. 

I hope you will accept this offer. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

In answering this letter, I practically agreed to the suggestion; 
at a later date, however, thinking we may arrange a debate, I 
wrote Mr. Farrell to the effect that I thought it would be more 
interesting to have the arguments stenographically reported and 
printed in lieu of our correspondence. As will be shown by the 
letters forming part of the Appendix, the "debate" could not be 



272 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

arranged — why? I believe the letters will answer that question 
— and along with other letters there from Mr. McCreary, in con- 
junction with all that have been used herein from Mr. Farrell on 
other subjects will make clear my reason for not entertaining any 
proposition from him in regard to joint-publication. 

In the above letter Mr. Farrell speaks of "proper redaction" 
and "standard references"; in the light of his other letters, and 
those on the subject of debate, will any one say I am uncharitable 
in asserting that his offer to make "proper redaction" was simply 
Jesuitism in action attempting to dispose of publication altogether 
by following the same tactics in this as in the matter of the de- 
bate? He wants to insert "standard references" — it will be re- 
called that all the way through I requested that he prove his an- 
swers in each instance by citing what he terms "standard refer- 
ences," which he persistently and consistently ignored, while those 
he has used in letters answering my criticisms were incompetent 
to stablish the truth, not being from the highest authority of his 
church, i. e., from popes and councils : "In the place where the tree 
falleth, there shall it be," THEREFORE, WHAT HAS BEEN 
WRITTEN, IS WRITTEN! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 23, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You might take the position that the teaching of a 
pope as to whether Protestants can be saved, will alone convince 
you, so I shall capture that position by immediate assault. (1) 

(2) Pius IX in his Encyclical Letter of August 10, 1863, wrote: 
"Those who live in invincible ignorance (a technical phrase mean- 
ing, as Bishop Carroll says, 'a disposition to embrace the truth 
whenever they find it') as regards our holy religion, and who, dili- 
gently observing the natural law and its precepts, which are en- 
graved by God on the hearts of all, are prepared to obey God and 
lead an upright life, are unable by the operation of divine light 
and grace, to obtain eternal life." 

(3) Is there any further retreat, any other position, you can 
fall back on? You may say there seems to be some conflict here; 
but there is none. There seems to be some conflict in Nature when 
the gentle warmth of spring causes the little buds to open and 
the bosom of the earth to swell, except the surface of her frozen 
lakes and rivers and the tops of high snow-capped hills, which, 
instead of swelling, shrink before the warmth and disappear. But 
this only shows Nature's art in adapting herself to all life, as 
without this wise exception the waters of the earth would freeze 
solid and never thaw. 

(4) The church of God, like Nature, is ordained to life. Noth- 
ing that works unto this end can be hindered by her law; rather, 
whatsoever does, is the workings of her law. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 273 

COMMENT 

(1) It is not necessary to give this subject much attention. 
The people of this country are not very deeply concerned with 
Roman Catholic theology. By way of answer, I may say that 
Roman Catholicism teaches that some may be saved without hav- 
ing received "actual" baptism — and Protestants who are saved 
are about in the same proportion. If any one is saved, Romanism 
claims the credit, which fact is in conflict with the law of "Inten- 
tion" adopted by the Council of Trent ; but a little thing like that 
does not bother papalism. The Spirit giveth light to every soul; 
those who are saved are quickened by the Holy Spirit: that is 
His office, yesterday, to-day and to-morrow; papalism has no 
more to do with it than Confucius or Buddha. 

(2) Several times I have been charged with misquoting. In 
this paragraph an effort is made by Farrell to quote Pope Pius 
IX; would it be presumptuous or charity to say he has misquoted? 
He said he was going to "capture that position by immediate as- 
sault," but it seems his powder was wet: did he mean to say "able" 
instead of "unable"? 

If some may be saved under the Providence of God without 
having heard the Gospel, many more can be saved by hearing; 
but I am not discussing salvation with the Catholic Laymen's 
Association of Georgia; my efforts have been directed to ascer- 
taining the moral and political effect Roman Catholicism exerts 
in America through its followers. To know what is its effect, it is 
necessary to know the spirit which actuates the institution, and 
that is to be found in the laws and dogmas of that church; after- 
ward, observe Catholicism in action where there is or has been 
practically no opposition for actual demonstration of its spirit 
and effect on a country : Wendell Phillips said, "The answer to the 
Shaster is India; the answer to the Koran is Turkey; the answer 
to the Bible is the Christian civilization of Protestant Europe and 
America," and I say the answer to Catholicism is Mexico. 

Listen to this Voice as it is wafted down the corridors of Time 
and catch a vision of the great heart breaking for love of man- 
kind: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killest the prophets that 
are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children 
together even as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, 
and ye would not," then from the endarkening shadows of Roman 
Catholicism hear the blood-curdling cry of the wolf, Pope Gregory 
IX, who said he was that "Voice": "It is not fitting that the 
Apostolic See should withhold its hand from bloodshed, lest it fail 
in its guardianship of the people of Israel." 

What effect has Romanism on the world? What is its spirit? 
Hear Cardinal Manning, in the Roman Catholic Tablet, January 
24, 1874, relative to re-establishing the temporal power of the 



274 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

pope in Europe: "There is only one solution of the difficulty, a 
solution, I fear, impending; and that is, the terrible scourge of a 
continental war which will exceed the horrors of any of the wars 
of the First Empire. And it is my firm conviction that, in spite 
of all obstacles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ will be put again in his 
own rightful place, but that day will not be until his adversaries 
have crushed each other with mutual destruction." There are 
those who have eyes to see, yet see not; because the papacy does 
not make a megaphone announcement of its program, some people 
will never connect it and Manning's prediction with the Great 
War! 

From the Roman Catholic Western Watchman, September 3, 
1914: "The late Cardinal Rampolla always said that a general 
European war would undoubtedly restore Rome to the pope. If 
Italy does not get into this war while it is on, she will have to get 
out of Rome when it is over." (Italy went in on the side of Protes- 
tant England, yet papal priests came near stampeding her army 
at a crucial moment!) 

Mr. Gladstone warned the nations of the world against the 
smooth Jesuitical exterior of the papal system as being pregnant 
with dangers to civil order ; said he : "I am confident that if a sus- 
tem so radically bad is to be made or kept innocus, the first condi- 
tion for obtaining such result is that its movements should be 
carefully watched, and, above all, that the basis upon which they 
work should be faithfully and unflinchingly exposed." The conduct 
of the papists of Ireland, Canada, and Australia, in opposing Eng- 
land in the Great War, would not have surprised Gladstone had 
he been alive: the so-called "Irish Question" is a papal proposi- 
tion to be used as a base from which to bring on a greater war, 
among Protestant nations. 

Mr. Gladstone is quoted as saying further: "There is a fatal 
purpose among the secret inspires of Roman policy to pursue, 
by way of force, upon the arrival of any favorable opportunity, 
the favorite project of re-erecting the terrestrial throne of pope- 
dom, even if it can only be erected on the ashes of the city and 
amidst the withering bones of the people. . . . I do not hesitate 
to say it is an incentive to general disturbance, a PREMIUM TO 
EUROPEAN WAR."— Rome and Reason, by Sidney Harris. 

It is said that "man's extremity is God's opportunity," that is 
to say, when man has done all he can, then God comes to his aid, 
while the world's extremity is the pope's opportunity; when it is 
in the throes of a death-struggle, that's the pope's opportunity 
to tower above nations, raising his throne mountain high on 
human skulls. 

Mr. Farrell quoted from one of the encyclicals of Pope Pius IX 
to prove that the papal church does not teach that Protestants 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 275 

can not be saved. We turn to the CONSTITUTION of that same 
pope, Apostolicae Sedis, 1869, wherein he decreed excommunica- 
tion against every heretic called by whatever name, which is in- 
corporated in the Canon Law. Those densely ignorant of papal- 
ism may have a kindly feeling toward the system because its head 
said there was some chance under certain conditions for one to be 
saved without seemingly being a member of that church — while a 
close scrutiny of the language shows that to meet those conditions 
makes one a papist — but to the intelligent, the above law by that 
same head has excommunicated every heretic in the world — they 
have all been condemned; if they are not executed, they are 
merely living by grace of the pope, who has taught that it is no 
crime in a legal sense to kill one who has been excommunicated— 
therefore the seeming concession in the encyclical in favor of 
Protestants is completely destroyed. 

"Is there any further retreat, any other position, you can fall 
back on?" asks Mr. Farrell; I have never retreated; but, again 
advance on him with his own DOCTRINE to show that the Cath- 
olic Laymen's Association is utterly false in matters affecting 
Catholicism, which proves also that the papal church is the enemy 
of TRUTH and a menace to Christian civilization : I turn to the 
"Manual of Christian Doctrine," a Catholic school text-book, and 
find it is in accord with Deharbe's Catechism regarding who shall 
be saved. By way of parenthesis I may explain that all doctrine 
in the papal church is the predicate of dogmas or decrees, the im- 
port of which is explained by the following question and answer 
from that book: 

"14. Do the laws of the church bind in conscience? 

"Yes, even as the laws of God," and that Catholics "owe to them 
not merely external obedience, but an obedience that is internal" 
p. 235. 

It will be remembered that, in a former letter, Mr. Farrell was 
saying something about what was meant by being a member of 
the Catholic church, while in the present letter he thinks he is 
citing competent authority to prove his position in referring to 
Pius IX, so I will offer the following from the "Manual of Chris- 
tian Doctrine" to show that it is impossible for him as a Catholic 
to discuss or defend papalism and to further substantiate my 
charge that the decree of the Council of Constance, "Keep no faith 
with heretics," and the teaching of the Italian church to conceal 
the faith when among heretics, and to speak with reservation, are 
all vital principles of that institution, TO-DAY : 

Question "45. Which are the errors against revelation?" 
Answer: ". . . 2. Protestantism and all the heresies which at- 
tack any one of the revealed truths." (The pope commands belief 



276 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

in purgatory, the fairy stories in Liguori's "Glories of Mary," 
scapular-wearing, and the like, to which Protestants object.) 

"46. What is the source of these errors? (Emphasis mine, as 
usual.) 

"It is the CRIMINAL revolt of reason against the divine teach- 
ing; a revolt which is the outcome of the pretended RIGHT of 
PRIVATE JUDGMENT," p. 6. (So, Protestants are criminals 
in the eyes of Romanists — which caused St. Thomas to say they 
should be removed from the earth by death— and Pius IX has ex- 
communicated them, to be executed when "expedient.") 

"14. Why is it necessary to belong to the church to be saved? 

"Because salvation outside the church is just as impossible as 
salvation without Christ. 

"Who do NOT belong to the church? 

"Infidels, HERETICS" (Protestants), "schismatics, excom- 
municates, and apostates do not belong to the church. 

"20. Who are heretics? 

"Heretics are such as, although baptized, reject one or more 
articles of faith taught by the church, as Protestants. 

"The Greeks and Russians are schismatics. 

"Excommunicates . . . They who enter secret societies," pp. 
117-8, "Manual of Christian Doctrine." 

That language is clear and simple — made so to be easily 
grasped by papal youth, and writes FALSEHOOD across every- 
thing Farrell has said in all his letters on this subject. 

The Canon Law teaches that the pope is bishop of all baptized 
persons, which doctrine is paraphased in this Manual, as follows : 

"24. Who are subject to ecclesiastical law?" (i. e., pope's law.) 

"ALL THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED 
AND WHO HAVE THE USE OF REASON." 

This takes in every Protestant minister and laymen in America, 
if they have the use of reason, and I hold it to be a fundamental 
truth that needs not to be argued, that any Protestant who does 
not oppose the Roman church in America as actively as the 
papists are propagating his tenets is in fact and in deed a mem- 
ber of the papal church, and subject to the pope in all things, and 
should be treated in the same manner as any other secret spy or 
enemy. 

Paragraphs (3) and (4) were intended to lead me away from 
my objective — but they don't. I understand Jesuitical subtlety. 

When His own people rejected Him, Christ turned to the Gen- 
tiles: the wild olive was grafted on the old stock; when papalism 
turned from Christianity, it was grafted on the old pagan stock, 
like Ephriam of old, "joined to his idols." With the tender sprigs 
of Christianity which existed from the days of the Apostles, that 
papalism could not destroy, Martin Luther replanted Christ's 
vineyard in the fertile soil of Protestantism to present a bleeding 
Savior to the world instead of the system which requires a bleed- 
ing world for the pope's footstool. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 277 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 24, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You will naturally ask, now: What, then, is the ad- 
vantage in one being a Catholic, if one can be saved anyhow? (1) 

(2) A very proper question, my friend; but not for me. Be- 
cause if I can only persuade you to respect us in our faith, my 
work is done. It is not ours to make converts, as I stated at first ; 
not ours to raise up doubts in minds at peace or to settle doubts 
already there. We stand ready to show that citizens of the Cath- 
olic faith ought not to be molested or maligned on account of their 
belief, and only ignorance of what they believe or a wilful pur- 
pose to deny them common justice in their own country, can ex- 
cuse or explain the necessity of their doing this much. 

(3) You know well enough, I do not doubt, that Catholics are 
the original advocates, and exponents, of religious liberty as em- 
bodied in our Constitution and laws, which mean, simply, if you 
are satisfied with your belief and we are satisfied with ours, there 
is no reason, justice or sense in our trying to stir up dissatisfac- 
tion even if we could, and, therefore, the spiritual advantages and 
consolations in one being a Catholic, from the very fact that this 
is not absolutely necessary to all without exception in order to be 
saved, are not proper to our discussion. 

(4) Really, our exchanges ought to have been confined all along 
to such matters as are pertinent to the common life of citizens, 
and would have been, but for the plain intimation on your part 
that you intend to take advantage of any irrelevant matter you 
could twist to advantage in an ex parte presentation made to stir 
up dissension and ill will among citizens, and our whole purpose 
being to avoid that very thing. I have tried to show your error 
even in matters not pertinent, assuming that, though not a peace- 
loving man, you are a self-respecting one who will not knowingly 
practice deceit upon your fellow citizens. 

(5) Through all, and above all, we are only trying that you 
may understand that Catholic people just like other people, more 
or less reasonable, more or less virtuous, more or less human, 
with few of them as good as they ought to be and few as bad as 
they could be and none as "black as they are painted." 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) No, I will not; the thirty-two questions show what I "would 
naturally ask," while these letters "naturally" show how a Jesuit 
practices the doctrine of evasion and reservation; whether or not 
a Catholic will be saved is a matter for that person and God to 
settle, but what the Catholic is taught to do, as one claiming the 
rights of citizenship in this country is a matter to be settled by 
non-Catholics, NOW. 

(2) Reiterating the invitation in the "Plea for Peace," Farrell 
says "we stand ready to show ..." I sent him thirty-two ques- 
tions and the only thing he has shown in his letters and answers 
has been somewhat in the nature of a marathon race to keep from 



278 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

showing anything. He thinks Catholics are molested and ma- 
ligned on account of their belief, or a wilful purpose to deny them 
justice: as long as the Catholic church has a dagger driven into 
the vitals of Protestantism she is happy in the possession of all 
her "rights," but the instant you grasp and hold the dagger-hand 
then Rome howls "persecution!" or that Catholics are "molested 
and maligned on account of their belief" or that "justice" is de- 
nied them and that such is born of ignorance. To change these 
conditions, papal priests formed the so-called "laymen's" associa- 
tion through which questions on papal faith, practices and tenets 
were invited. All these letters from Farrell show how cunningly 
the Roman church conceals its faith from those who ask informa- 
tion, and prove that the organization of that association was for 
a fraudulent purpose. That the people have been "ignorant" of 
papalism, I admit ! 

(3) If "Catholics" were the "original advocates and exponents 
of religious liberty as embodied in our constitution and laws," 
their efforts in Congress and in other directions to destroy that 
provision belies the statement; the school books and Canon Law 
also belie it; if Catholics ever appeared to stand for religious 
liberty, it was when there were not a sufficient number of priests 
to make the opposite effective. In the pioneer days there were 
few PAPISTS in America; if there were liberty-loving Catholics 
then, all honor to them ; if there are any now, all glory to them : 
but what an individual Catholic is, when left to himself, and what 
they are under the direction of "a sufficient number of priests," 
who are foreign to everything American, is altogether a different 
question. Lord Baltimore had to be tolerant in order to get a 
charter for his colony. Compare the number of Catholics with 
Masons who signed the Declaration of Independence! 

(4) This spokesman for Catholics in Georgia says that I "take 
advantage of irrelevant matter" and "twist it to advantage in 
an ex parte presentation" to stir up ill-will : the average reader, 
I presume, is as intelligent as Farrell, and will detect the "irrele- 
vant" matter presented — and will also detect the fact that he fails 
to indicate what constitutes such in my papers! and no one but 
Farrell will see how I "twist it to advantage in an ex parte pres- 
entation" when he had my statements before him in which I en- 
deavored to show wherein his answers were not satisfactory; and 
how can it be "ex parte" when he himself closed the correspond- 
ence, through which he was making rebuttal, or defense, or ex- 
planation — or whatever he is of a mind to term his letters? 

A Roman Catholic is such, only so long as he is obedient to the 
laws of the pope which create him; the pope makes the laws that 
make a Catholic, and all through this discussion I have tried to 
get Farrell to confine himself to that law, requesting time and 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 279 

time again that he base his answers on the law of the pope, but 
instead of doing so, he kept away from it entirely — not once did 
he cite law to substantiate any point he has attempted to make! 
If criticizing the laws, decrees and dogmas of the pope is "malign- 
ing" Catholics ; if they can not or will not defend them before the 
bar of reason, justice and common sense; if they refuse to advance 
reasonable explanations of them, yet to demand this is "malign- 
ing" them, then I plead guilty to the charge — I leave the verdict 
with the jury: all American citizens. 

" — though not a peace-loving man," says Farrell, "you are a 
self-respecting one who will not knowingly practice deceit upon 
your fellow-citizens." I sincerely wish I could return the com- 
pliment. If I have attempted to deceive anywhere in my letters, 
Mr. Farrell failed to indicate where it occurs; he has not proved 
me in error in any one material fact — he can't! If to be a "peace- 
loving man" means that I must not question papalism and what it 
intends to do for me and my countrymen, I plead guilty to that 
charge also. I do not desire "peace at any price." The trouble 
with Roman Catholics is, they say we must not only love them 
and their dog, but also every flea on the dog! 

In the Canon Law of the church, issued in strict conformity 
with the Rules of the Index, under caption, "Pope," pp. 491-2, 
sec. 4, we read : 

"Canonists distinguish in the pope a three-fold power: 

"(1) The power of the bishop of the Catholic church. 

" (2) The power of the bishop of the Roman church. 

"(3) The power of a TEMPORAL PRINCE. 

"5. ... he has the power, as the supreme legislator, of making 
laws and of enforcing their observance. 

"6. ... he can absolve from ANY sin, RELAX VOWS AND 
OATHS. 

"7. ... as the supreme judge himself, he can be judged by no 
man." 

Leo XIII, a recent pope, said: "But the man who has embraced 
the Christian" (papal) "faith, as in duty bound, is by that very 
fact a subject of the church as one of the children born of her, 
and . . . which it is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to 
rule with supreme power." Encyclical, January 10, 1890. The 
Canon Law shows to what extent the pope is to RULE his SUB- 
JECTS, AS A FOREIGN PRINCE, AS BISHOP OF THE 
UNIVERSAL CHURCH, AND OF THE ROMAN CHURCH— 
his rule is absolute, from Alpha to Omega, with papists, and when 
we have forced upon us the conviction that Romanists are obedi- 
ent to the pope in the exercise of all his powers, in God's name, 
should we not ask questions, and DEMAND answers from papal 
subjects in this country? Farrell says ignorance on the part of 



280 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

non-Catholics is the reason why it is necessary for him "doing 
this much"— whatever that is ; he apparently resents being called 
on to make answer at all — and when he does answer, does not tell 
the truth ! 

The following is cited from another eminent authority on 
Canon Law, Sebastin B. Smith: 

"203. Has the church the power to inflict the penalty of death? 
Cardinal Tarquini answers thus: 1. Inferior ecclesiastics are 
forbidden, though only by ecclesiastical law, to exercise this power 
DIRECTLY. 2. It is CERTAIN that the pope and Ecumenical 
Councils have this power, at least mediately ; that is, they can, if 
the necessity of the church demands, require a Catholic ruler to 
impose this penalty. That they can not DIRECTLY exercise this 
power can not be proved." 

This explains in part the desire for union of Church and State. 

What is the general relation of the pope to the whole world? 
In his "Law of Nations," a standard authority for over one hun- 
dred years on international law, Edmund De Vettel says: 

"There is no middle course. Either each State must be master 
in its own territory on the subject of religion as on every other, 
or the system of Boniface VIII must be accepted and all Roman 
Catholic Christendom be looked upon as a SINGLE STATE, with 
the pope as supreme head, and kings as subordinate administra- 
tors of temporal affairs, each in his own province, much as the 
Sultans were formerly under the sovereignty of Caliphs." 

Many volumes could be quoted and considered, but the fore- 
going is sufficient to prove: 

I. Without regard to where he lives, or in what country, a 
Roman Catholic must recognize in the pope a TEMPORAL 
RULER; 

II. The pope, being a temporal ruler, every Roman Catholic in 
the world, being subject to the pope, is a subject of a foreign tem- 
poral power or kingdom; 

III. The pope alone has the power to make laws by which his 
subjects in all lands are to be governed; 

IV. He can absolve said subjects from any sin as well as release 
them from any oath of allegiance to any other power at his 
pleasure; 

V. Being himself supreme lawgiver and judge, no one in the 
world — individual, or nation — can sit in judgment upon him, 
question, or nullify his legislation, which Roman Catholic sub- 
jects must maintain and defend; 

VI. As supreme legislator for a "perfect society" which is "not 
inferior to that of the State," he has authority to use the State, 
called the secular arm of the church, to enforce his mandates, and 
it can not be proved that even his priests can not immediately in- 
flict the death penalty; 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 281 

VII. Where the various States or foreign kingdoms have no 
concordat with the pope, he has the right to rule them, through 
his subjects therein residing; 

VIII. As "bishop of the Catholic" or "Universal Church," he 
is not only the head of the Roman, but his jurisdiction extends 
over all churches or sects called Christian, collectively and indi- 
vidually — all baptized persons belong to his spiritual kingdom, 
hence subject to him and his laws as a TEMPORAL SOVER- 
EIGN. 

The Great Preceptor declared : "A house divided against itself 
can not stand." It will be seen from the above eight counts that 
no Roman Catholic can appreciate citizenship in any country not 
under concordat with the pope, yet in America they are holding 
a double citizenship — and the pope's kingdom is first with them, 
according to the Canon Law. Catholics say this is "maligning" 
them ; if it is, it is merely holding before them and the world the 
laws of their pope. If they do not agree with and support them, 
they are traitors to him; if they are true to the pope, they are 
untrue to this country: "Ye can not serve two masters," also de- 
clared the Christ. 

A consideration of the eighth count may throw light on Far- 
rell's assertion that the papal church does not teach that Protes- 
tants can not be saved, and is the reason why, in non-Catholic 
communities Catholics are forced to try to keep other people from 
practicing what the pope's laws forbid — free speech, free press, 
etc. 

Jesse James was "a law unto himself"; he trampled the laws of 
God and man under his feet; to offer resistance to him, his "laws," 
or the workings of his followers in their plundering raids — or the 
failure to assist if required — meant death according to his "de- 
cree": any person who assisted him, either as a member of his 
band, or through fear or favor, became himself an outlaw — an 
unworthy citizen — and the enemy of civilized society. 

THE POPE OF ROME DECLARES HE IS A LAW UNTO 
HIMSELF. 

If Roman Catholics know the laws of their church, they know 
said laws make them wilful enemies of a free, democratic country, 
and have no right to say one is a "bigot" for opposing them for 
political place, and their presence in public schools as teachers. 

Mr. Farrell says I am not a "peace-loving man." If opposing 
the pretensions of a foreign power to set its laws in opposition to 
American law, I must plead guilty to the indictment; even so, I 
would go no further than prevent Roman Catholics from exercis- 
ing the rights of citizenship, applying to them only the laws that 
obtain relative to any other subject of a foreign princedom — 
make them resident aliens ; I would not advocate "removing them 



282 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

from the earth by death," nor "persecute" them just because they 
refuse to quit the pope's church. I would not harm any subject 
of a foreign power — unless said subject evinced a desire to destroy 
the laws of the country which have made this a better place in 
which to live than those countries that his kind have made unfit 
to live in. Farrell no doubt would say he and his church are 
"peace-loving" — the laws and history of that institution show it 
is "peace-loving" : it provides "peace" in the tomb for those who 
refuse to submit to papal authority through the "loving" embrace 
of the "Iron Maiden" and otherwise ! 

Let us see what Roman Catholicism means where the laws of 
the pope are recognized: 

Dr. 0. A. Bronson, a noted Roman Catholic authority, said: 
"Protestantism of every form has not and never can have any 
right where Catholicity is triumphant." (It makes Protestants 
"disappear from the face of the earth.") 

M. Louis Venillot, a French Roman Catholic writer who stood 
high in Vatican circles, said: "Where there is a Protestant ma- 
jority, we claim religious liberty, because such is their principle; 
but where we are in the majority, we refuse it, because that is 
ours." (So commands papal law!) 

A few citations form the Corpus Juris, the code of law of the 
papal church, will show where the above papal authorities get 
their inspiration: 

"If any one presumes to keep heretics in his house or lands, or 
to carry on business with him, he is to be excommunicated," 11 c-8. 

"The possessions of heretics to be confiscated . . . even though 
the heretics have Catholic children," c-10. 

The papal church is a "peace-loving" institution! Here are a 
few citations from the decrees of its supreme legislator, as en- 
forced by puppets ruling under him, establishing that fact ( ! ) : 

Pedro of Aragon made it a positive law to burn heretics. 

Frederic II made it a law in Lombardy that heretics should be 
burned, or should at least have their tongues torn out. 

Burning was prescribed for heretics in France under direction 
of the papacy. 

The Constitution of Pope Pius IX, Apostoliciae Sedis, 1869, de- 
creed "excommunication latae sententae, especially reserved to 
the Roman Pontiff against all and every heretic called by what- 
ever name; and also against their believers, RECEIVERS, favor- 
ers, and DEFENDERS."— Taunton's Canon Law. Leo XIII, the 
successor of Pius, taught that it would be most impious and most 
inhuman to let people go unharmed who violate what the popes 
decreed to be truth — and the above laws tell us what he considers 
"truth"! 

Farrell closes this letter by saying there are few Catholics "as 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 283 

bad as they could be and none as 'black as they are painted'." 
THE LAW OF THAT CHURCH DETERMINES THE 'COLOR' 
of a Catholic : if he is sailing under false colors by not being "AS 
BAD" as the LAW REQUIRES, he should be true to the prompt- 
ings of his natural instinct and get from under their influence; 
if he remains in the system, that very fact is an acknowledgment 
made to the world that he is "READY TO OBEY WHATSO- 
EVER" THE POPE "COMMANDS"— and the pope's laws show 
what he can and may command, when expedient! To remain in 
that system is to abet the laws, rules and regulations of the 
papacy, which absolutely disqualifies him for American citizen- 
ship. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 26, 1917. 

Dear Sir: In my letter of November 12, I promised to tell you 
how Catholics are taught to obey conscience in spite of everything 
in the world. 

You may not have known that in 1874, on the occasion of the 
definition of papal infallibility, Sir Wm. Gladstone, in a pamphlet 
entitled "Vaticanism," made the charge which you now repeat 
about Catholics not being in conscience free. In an open letter 
to the Duke of Norfolk, written in answer to Mr. Gladstone, Car- 
dinal Newman, speaking in particular of the "Authority of Con- 
science," said: "Conscience is not a judgment upon any specu- 
lative truth, nor abstract doctrine, but bears immediately on con- 
duct, or something to be done or not done. 'Conscience/ says St. 
Thomas, 'is the practical judgment or dictate of reason, by which 
we judge what hie ec nunc is to be done as being good, or to be 
avoided as evil.' Hence conscience can not come into direct colli- 
sion with the church's or the pope's infallibility, which is engaged 
on general proposition and in the condemnation of particular and 
given errors. 

"A collision is possible between conscience and the pope's au- 
thority ONLY, when the pope legislates or gives particular 
orders, and the like. But a pope is not infallible in his laws, nor 
in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administra- 
tion, nor in his public policy. 

"Since, then, infallibility alone could block the exercise of con- 
science, and the pope is not infallible in that subject matter in 
which conscience is of supreme authority, no deadlock can take 
place between the conscience and the pope." 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

Before entering upon a general discussion of the subject of 
"Conscience" again, I shall attend to the contention of Cardinal 
Newman. (No doubt Mr. Farrell thinks he has fooled me by citing 
what some cardinal or theologian said; they all have a right to 
say what they wish, I suppose; but they are not COMPETENT 
authority in defining what the church teaches concerning any sub- 



284 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

ject: the pope alone is "competent" authority — why did he not 
cite from one of them? HE COULDN'T!) Newman said: "Con- 
science . . . bears immediately ... on something to be done or 
not done," and that St. Thomas says it "is the practical judgment 
or dictate of REASON, by which we judge what ... is to be 
done ... or to avoid as evil." Both citations are correct, as far 
as they go; but the all-important question to be decided here is, 
WHO is to exercise this conscience? St. Thomas also teaches 
that "TO REASON it specially pertains to guide and govern . . . 
it is evident thatT;he subject (of the church) so far as subject 
. . . OUGHT NEITHER TO CONTROL OR GOVERN, but 
rather to be controlled and governed." Has any one ever heard 
of a layman of the Catholic church assisting in the control or 
government of that institution — ever exercised Reason in shaping 
its dogmas or laws? No. WHO, then, controls and governs? 
The pope; so, therefore, by "judgment or dictate of reason" we 
are to decide what is to be done or not to be done, but the ruler 
alone can exercise this reason, hence conscience, the predicate of 
reason, as it exists in the Catholic, can be only as that of the one 
who does the reasoning: the pope. 

Newman says further that "no deadlock can take place between 
the conscience and the pope," and I most assuredly agree with 
him, for it stands to reason that if the pope alone has the right to 
exercise the reasoning power, and conscience being the result of 
reason, there can be no deadlock between the one who reasons 
and the one who accepts such reasoning. In other words, there 
can never be a "deadlock" between the caboose and the engine 
pulling it ! As long as it is coupled to the engine, it will go in any 
general direction the engine goes: as long as the subject remains 
subject to papal reason that conscience goes where its "motive- 
power" directs. A Catholic may not appreciate this, but it is a 
logical conclusion that he can not refute. 

Particular attention is directed to the fact that in no one of the 
citations pertaining to conscience does Farrell set up the claim 
that an INDIVIDUAL may exercise the right to REASON, 
which is necessary to the possession of conscience as an individual. 

Mr. Farrell attempts to show that conscience has an elevated 
place in the papal system not substantiated by evidence; never 
does he cite an authority that unequivocally and unmistakably 
gives the layman the right to reason; he conceals that fact. And 
in this he portrays the DOUBLE DOCTRINE OF THE 
CHURCH OF ROME! 

The word "conscience" is from the Latin conscio : con and scio : 
to know, therefore conscience is capable of great development, 
which is influenced or shaped according to the environment in 
which it "learns" or "knows," eventually assuming as a fixed 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 285 

principle the predominating nature of the influence under which 
it is developed. So true is this, that a persan can be persuaded to 
doubt his physical senses and say black is white if required by 
those who were in charge of the process of shaping the conscience, 
and such person would be conscientious according to his con- 
science, that is, he "knows" what he was taught, although an- 
other person may contend that white is white and black remains 
black, with an absolutely clear "conscience" — knowledge. After 
a fashion, both would be right; but, to discover the error, if error 
exists, it becomes necessary to exercise reason: make a personal 
investigation of the laws by which white and black are created, 
to have a "conscience" or "knowledge" of what is white or black. 
A parrot learns by rote what is repeated to it often enough, but 
a parrot does not know — it has no conscience — because it can not 
reason. ''Conscience" that flows from the reasoning of another 
is like music that flows from a phonograph! 

Where one is trained, beginning in early infancy, to believe that 
some other person alone has the right to direct and control its 
every thought and act; that even to desire a change from that 
condition is sinful, it will have a conscience- — that is, it will know 
what is right or wrong or what it must do or avoid doing — only 
as it is taught by the preceptor, in which case there is no "self- 
knowledge, or judgment" as to what is right or wrong, and, with- 
out this "self-knowledge," as is evident, one does not know, there 
can not be a true "conscience," and if that person be taught to 
"harm" or kill those who disagree with that system of training, 
that "conscience" will accept that doctrine as readily as it will 
believe the priest makes Jesus Christ out of a piece of pancake 
which he must eat to be saved! 

Concentrating every energy and straining every nerve the 
papal system strives to get control of the child in early infancy 
and puts it under the influence of teachers who will mold its con- 
science by papal laws and decrees so that all it ever knows will be 
papal, and all its judgments of right and wrong will accord with 
papal law. Under this system the child may become a "master 
musician" : for does it not have a "conscience" or "knowledge" of 
every detail of the workings of a phonograph? Yet, to save its 
soul from purgatory, could not strike a chord on the piano ! And 
could never join the Great Symphony Orchestra of the Universe 
to bless mankind. 

St. Thomas, to whom Farrell and Newman referred, teaches 
that the papal institution has the right to remove dissenters from 
the earth by death; Leo XIII and Pius IX ordered this theology 
taught throughout the world, and all writers must accept his 
doctrine as a pattern for all their productions, so what does an 
individual Romanist know what is right in this matter except as 



286 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

he is taught by the teachers in his church? Nothing — absolutely 
nothing; he knows or has a conscience concerning this that the 
Italian pope says he must have, that and nothing more: if he 
studies the subject, he must confine himself to those books issued 
by the papal church according to the Rules of the Index, there- 
fore he is in conscience bound to believe black to be white, if his 
superiors so define it, to which he must give internal assent and 
external respect! 

That Newman and Aquinas were not considering laymen at all 
in the premises — or if so, such was merely camouflage for non- 
Catholic consumption — is conclusively proved by Pope Leo XIII 
in his Encyclical on Human Liberty, p. 155 Great Encyclical 
Letters. After having condemned what Protestants term "liberty 
of worship," liberty of speech and of the press, saying "there can 
be no such right," he declares: "Another liberty is widely advo- 
cated, namely, liberty of conscience. If by this is meant that 
every one may, as he chooses, worship God or not, it is sufficiently 
refuted by the arguments already adduced." Again he says 
"what we are bound to believe, and what we are obliged to do, are 
laid down ... by the Supreme Pontiff," p. 194. Compare this 
doctrine with Newman an Aquinas : they all agree on the defini- 
tion of "conscience." If, as Leo says, a Catholic is "bound to 
believe" and is "obliged to do" as he is directed by the pope, is it 
possible for such person to have a "conscience," which means a 
SELF-KNOWLEDGE, of what is right or wrong? To me, it 
seems physically impossible; they may "make music" — on the 
phonograph ! 

Newman admits that the pope is infallible only in defining a 
dogma ; that in all else he is liable to err, and Farrell also makes 
this admission; now, the same body of men composing the Vatican 
Council who defined the doctrine of infallibility as a matter to be 
believed also passed the decree which gave the pope COMPLETE 
JURISDICTION and authority "not only in things which pertain 
to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the dis- 
cipline and government of the church throughout the world" — : 
the decree of infallibility and authority by the same council; the 
power that created the one pronounced the other, so that when 
the pope says he alone can determine what a Catholic must do or 
leave undone, he is exercising the authority vested in him for 
that specific purpose. To this authority a Catholic must be obe- 
dient the same as he must believe what the pope proposes for 
belief. If Mr. Farrell or any one else could deny this proposition 
and maintain such denial, it would be giving the pope the right to 
define a dogma or promulgate a decree witout the necessary power 
to enforce acceptance, which, on its face, would constitute a para- 
doxical absurdity, as well as make room for liberty of conscience, 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 287 

paving the way for private investigation and the exercise of inde- 
pendent judgment regarding right and wrong— which would be 
the end of papalism, as Farrell well knows; hence, the principle 
does not exist in that system. 

Those who are in conscience free are at liberty to investigate 
any subject without restraint; if they say white is white, or black 
is black, the declaration is based upon a knowledge of the scien- 
tific principles underlying their production so that they speak 
with a knowledge of the truth of the subject, being prepared to 
offer PROOF if necessary. This alone is an expression of a "free" 
conscience. 

When the pope defines a dogma, it is accepted as being revealed 
by God through the pope, and if any one attempts to violate, 
destroy or question it, the disciplinary power of the pope requires 
the Catholic, as a matter of conscience, to believe it is "most im- 
pious, most foolish, and most inhuman" to let such "go un- 
harmed." The papal church can not allow the right to accept a 
dogma but reject authority, because they are interdependent 
principles essential to the life-principle of papalism. 

A conscience that "knows" only what another — and he a for- 
eigner — wants it to know, does not portend good to the American 
form of Government nor American institutions: the Constitution 
declares no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property ex- 
cept by due process of law, the "due process" being also explained, 
while the laws of the pope abrogate every right of the Constitu- 
tion and make those rights dependent upon conforming in mind 
and conscience to the "thought" of a foreign temporal ruler under 
the guise of "religion." 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 26, 1917. 

Dear Sir: You will say, however, that though not infallible 
the pope is supreme in his commands, laws, etc., and therefore, 
Catholics are not in conscience free. 

But Cardinal Newman meets this objection in his letter where 
he quotes Cardinal Gousset's Moral Theology (p. 24) as saying: 
"The divine law is the supreme rule of our actions, our thoughts, 
words, desires, all that man is, and this law is the rule of our con- 
duct by means of our conscience; hence, it is never lawful to go 
against conscience." 

And Cardinal Gousset here quotes the Fourth Lateran Council 
as follows : "Quidquid fit contra conscientiam, aedeficat ad gehen- 
nam" (He who acts against conscience, goes to hell) . 

Cardinal Newman adds the following: "The celebrated school 
of Salamanaca lays down the broad proposition that conscience 
is to be obeyed whether it tells truly or erroneously." 

He refers to St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Cajetan, Vasquez, 
Durandus, Navarrus, Layman, Escobar, and fourteen others as 
teaching to the same effect. y truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 



288 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

comment 
The first proposition claiming attention here is the quotation 
where Cardinal Newman cites Cardinal Gousset, saying: "The 
divine law is the supreme rule of our . . . conduct by means of 
our conscience." WHOSE conscience is referred to, the pope's, 
or the layman's? I will grant, as the pope alone has the right to 
interpret and construe the Bible, that he has a conscience 'Void 
of offense toward God and toward man" as far as he understands 
and correctly interprets the Word; but if the reference is even 
inferentially intended to lead me to believe laymen of the papal 
church are included, Farrell has attempted to deceive, for, as is 
well known, the Roman church discourages Bible reading, and 
even prohibits a priest from interpreting any text according to 
his private judgment, who swears, at ordination, to interpret the 
Bible as the popes direct, therefore we see, under the operation 
of this rule, the consciences of laymen are governed by what the 
priest says the pope has pronounced to be "divine law." As pre- 
viously stated, this enables the pope to exercise a free conscience, 
but as priests and laymen are prohibited by the pope's decrees 
from exercising private judgment, and interpreting Holy Scrip- 
ture, how can they know what is the "divine law" by which they 
are to shape their conduct by means of conscience, when the very 
word itself means to know — how can they have that SELF- 
KNOWLEDGE necessary for one to determine what is good or 

evil? fJ , 

If the Bible is the rule and guide by which all men should shape 
their conscience — and it is— they will not understand or consult 
It where they are required to accept what another person says it 
teaches, which precludes the existence of a free conscience. He 
who accepts that principle is bound to him who acts as sole inter- 
preter, and must depend on him to be ruled and guided. As illus- 
trative of this principle in action, we have merely to consider the 
Brahmin woman who sacrificed her life on the corpse of her hus- 
band, permitting herself to be burnt to death in accord with the 
dictates of her "conscience"; but hers was not a free conscience: 
what she knew was taught by the priest; she was actuated by the 
"divine law" as it was interpreted for her by the SYSTEM m 
which she was born. We see this principle in action also in the 
massacres by the Roman church that caused Protestant sects to 
"fade from the earth," which is in the Canon Law, and in the 
bishop's oath: can a Catholic layman act otherwise? 

Mr. Farrell cites authorities, quoting from the Fourth Lateran 
Council, saying, "He who acts against conscience, goes to hell." 
There is no inconsistency in my contention and this Lateran doc- 
trine : after the pope declares to the Catholic conscience what is 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 289 

"divine law" then, of course, he who goes against it "goes to hell" 
— unadulterated papal doctrine! 

Mr. Farrell also cites from "the celebrated school of Salaman- 
aca": Obey conscience right or wrong; that's good papal doctrine: 
after the pope has made conscience, obey it, then, right or wrong ! 
I quote from the school of the Salmanites: "A servant may, ac- 
cording to his own judgment, pay himself with his own hands 
more than was agreed upon as a salary for his own work, if he 
finds that he deserves a larger salary," and St. Liguori approves, 
saying "this doctrine appears just and good to me." Salm., D. 4, 
proe, N. 137. 

"A poor man, who has concealed the goods and effects of which 
he is in need, may swear that he has nothing." Salm., N. 140. 

"Saint" Liguori teaches: "If several persons steal from the 
same master, in small quantities, each in such a manner as not to 
commit a mortal sin, though each one knows that all these little 
thefts together cause considerable damage to their master, yet no 
one of them commits a mortal sin, even when they steal at the 
same time." 

In the year 1910 the French Parliament secured copies of the 
text-books used in papal schools which taught this doctrine to the 
"children" of that church! France has given such schools a 
limited number of years in which to close out ! 

Many of the papal theologians teach this doctrine; in fact, 
Liguori and Aquinas are the patterns to be followed by all papal 
writers — all nothing but the "traditions of men" which do not 
ring true with the Word of God, yet this stuff must be accepted 
by papists as the "divine law" by which they are to regulate their 
conduct by means of conscience! God said, "Thou shalt not 
steal"; the pope says, "Steal a little at a time," leaving the con- 
science he has shaped to determine HOW MUCH to steal! 

M. Georges Trouillot, former Colonial Minister, was made chair- 
man of a Parliamentary Commission to investigate certain ques- 
tions and report back to the French Assembly. Among other 
things presented in his report he read from the "Theologia Dog- 
matica et Moralis," a text-book then being used in sixty-seven 
Roman Catholic seminaries, the following: "The church has re- 
ceived from God the power to force or repress those who wander 
from the truth, not only by spiritual penalties, but also by tem- 
poral ones. . . . These are prison, flagellation, MUTILATION, 
DEATH." (Pou Vidie laique, p. 52, issue of 1899.)— From "France 
Under the Republic," by Jean Charlemange Bracq, Professor of 
French Literature at Vassar College, 1916. This doctrine is based 
upon the decree of the Council of Trent. 

From the French Roman Catholic text-book on morals : "How 
much must one steal so that there should be a mortal sin? From 



290 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

a poor man, one franc ; from a workingman, to the amount of a 
day's wages; from a rich man, no matter how rich he is, ten or 
twelve francs." Ibid. 

Roman Catholicism boasts she never changes, and that she is 
the same, always, in all countries — what do you think of that 
being taught to American citizens — to your boys and girls? 
What's the matter with our Congress? 

A "free" conscience implies, and in fact can exist only where 
there is, free moral agency, which is unknown in the papal sys- 
tem. God made of each soul a separate being — individual minds 
as well as bodies — and expects each one to choose or reject all 
things, as a free moral agent; but where this right to "choose" is 
denied, there can be no "free" conscience. And what a Catholic 
is supposed to know, he does not know for certain, as the "holy" 
fathers have disagreed on many essentials, while popes have re- 
vised the Bible to have it rejected by other popes: even now it is 
to undergo another "revision!" 

Train a child from infancy in the "theology" of Rome, permit 
no thought to penetrate its mind except what the pope directs, 
and you will have a "conscience" hypersensitive concerning 
popery, but "seared as with a hot iron" relative to everything 
else. 

Let us turn the pages of history; we are in Spain, a true 
daughter of papalism; Thomas of Torquemada is at the head of 
the "holy" Inquisition by direct authority of the pope; what is 
all that noise, that hubbub and gleeful shouts and banterings? 
Oh, that's nothing! just bringing to the "holy" office a "heretic" 
caught in the terrible act of attempting to escape from the coun- 
try: follow him into the frowning "temple of justice" (?) where 
the "holy" men of the pope sit in august array to try the culprit. 
What! he refuses to embrace the "true" faith? Put his feet in 
iron boots, and pour melted lead in them! So faithfully is the 
wife bound in conscience to the Italian god that she reveals her 
dark suspicions of her husband to the Holy Inquisitors — she sus- 
pects him of heretical or Masonic tendencies: her papal heart 
swells with joy as she listens to the shrieks of pain wrung from 
him as hot lead is poured into his ears or his tongue is torn out 
with red-hot pincers! A true son of the church informs on his 
father: as the old man lies across the trestle-like bed and the 
ponderous wheel is rolled over him, breaking bone after bone, the 
son sees in that writhing form nothing but an "enemy" of "papa" ! 
A mother thinks her daughter is guilty of the "CRIME" of heresy, 
and the holy Inquisition is given the case: that the tender body 
will be fastened to the rack and limbs torn, one at a time, from the 
trunk may be awful for the mother-heart to contemplate — but 
was she not attempting to exercise REASON, contrary to the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 291 

"divine law" of "His Holiness, the Pope"? But, behold! what 
have we here? A Mason? A man who dared to join a proscribed 
society 1 Away with him to the Iron Maiden! let his body be cut 
to shreds by a thousand knives! A bishop of the "true" faith 
goes into Prance armed with papal orders to "extirpate" heresy: 
men, women, children and babies seek refuge in caves — to be 
sealed up alive : the conscience of the Brahmin woman caused her 
to throw her living body in the flames to be consumed with her 
dead husband to please her religious superior, while the Catholic 
conscience caused the world to be blighted and blasted with the 
infernal Inquisition, THE ROCK-BOTTOM PRINCIPLE OF 
THE PAPAL SYSTEM, TO-DAY— it is in papal law and in the 
bishop's oath, to which every Catholic "conscience" in Georgia 
and America is subject; their conscience is under the sa,me 
teachers to-day that gave birth to the Papal Inquisition, when 
they were in the majority — which is the doctrine of that "angelic" 
doctor of the church, "Saint" Thomas, which teaches that the 
pope's "faithful" have the right to remove heretics from the earth 
by death! 

Many men and women of great intellect have left the papal 
church, prompted by a real conscience; Farrell says they were 
put out because they were "wicked" — and they were, if Catholic 
theology is the criterion by which they are to be judged, because 
the pope is the only man in the world who has the right to say 
what they must KNOW. Those men and women exercised 
REASON, which was a crime in the eyes of that church, while 
the following is taught as the "divine law" shaping Catholic con- 
science: 

"Respecting heretics, we have two observations to make: In 
the first place they are guilty of a sin by which they deserve to 
be excluded not only from the church by excommunication, but 
from the world by death. . . . And if counterfeiters and other 
malefactors are justly put to death by the secular power, for the 
greater reason may heretics, when convicted of heresy, be not only 
excommunicated but justly killed. . . . 

"Those coming back for the first time from heresy to the 
church" may be reinstated, "but when they relapse again into 
heresy . . . they are allowed indeed to do penance but are not 
free from the sentence of death." — Saint Thomas, Summa, 2. 2., 
qu. XI, art. 3 and 4. 

"The almost one in one hundred" Catholics in Georgia subscribe 
to that; the one in six forming the population of these United 
States — seventeen millions in all — endorse that doctrine; it is a 
vital part of the tenets of the Italian system of "religion" that 
many so-called Protestants are assisting to gain that supremacy 
which will enable its practice in this land by sending their chil- 



292 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

dren to the papal school and putting them under the influence of 
papal teachers in our free public schools; they hear the hiss of 
the serpent in that doctrine — they know the poisonous fangs are 
there — concealed, but because they are concealed they "rush in 
where angels" should "fear to tread" ! 

The many millions of human beings who were murdered in ac- 
cordance with the above doctrine preferred death rather than sur- 
render their CONSCIENCE, while the Catholic conscience acted 
according to the laws of the papal church, and it will be noted 
that Mr. Farrell has not quoted any pope as even intimating a 
subject of the church has the right to exercise conscience respect- 
ing papal dogmas or authority. HE COULD NOT DO IT, for 
there is no such citation to be cited ! The only time he attempted 
to quote a pope — citing Pius IX — was rendered beyond the com- 
prehension of the finite mind. 

A Roman Catholic has a conscience free, figuratively, to this 
extent: he may choose whether or not he shall go to confession 
once a day, once a week, once a month, BUT HE MUST GO 
ONCE A YEAR ! The pope says so, and he goes — and every time 
he goes to the pope's church he is endorsing the doctrine of 
Aquinas and the bishop's oath! 

And this is the "conscience" that many so-called Protestants 
are assisting to put in control of American politics, and the free 
public schools — because they have "so many sweet Catholic 
friends!" 



Augusta, Ga., Nov. 27, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Noting in the folder mentioned in a previous letter, 
and which I assume that you sent me, the quotation from a ser- 
mon preached by Father D. S. Phelan, in 1912. 

I might parallel this with the utterance of Sovereign Grand In- 
spector General Wright in the allocution delivered at the October, 
1915, session of the Supreme Council Scottish Rite, as follows: 
"Our Supreme Council is a hierarchy based upon the principle 
which makes that supreme government the most stable in the his- 
tory of mankind. . . . The Constitution of our country does not 
bind us." 

Or the utterance of a deputy of the Supreme Council made 
about a year ago and quoted in the Masonic publication, Light, 
Volume 2, page 570, as follows: "The Scottish Rite is built from 
the head down. The grand commander is its head and is supreme. 
I am here as his representative and in my position I would violate 
the laws of the State before I would disobey an order of the Grand 
Commander." 

But what good would it do? Don't I know Masons are just like 
other people, some good, some bad, as citizens and as men? 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 293 

COMMENT 

Phelan's sermon, wherein he declared that if the Government 
of the United States were at war with the Roman Catholic church,, 
Catholics would say, "To hell with the Government of the United 
States," and the subject-matter in paragraph two are not par- 
allels : Phelan voiced papal LAW, the deputy gave rein to a flight 
of personal fancy. 

Viewing Freemasonry from the outside, just as I do Roman 
Catholicism, by a consideration of available information; study- 
ing its laws, history and literature, I surmise its genius, so in 
this light, to say "the Constitution of our country does not bind 
us" may mean — and I am inclined to that opinion — that the or- 
ganization is not bound together as such by a Constitutional act, 
as it has the right to exist under the law without being chartered, 
if preferred, and, unlike the Jesuit or other priestly orders in the 
papal system of government, it does not exist nor can it be abol- 
ished by law — unless it can be shown to be in conflict with the 
Constitution ; my opinion is based on the fact that Constitutional 
Government is the outgrowth of the Masonic principle, if not its 
direct offspring. 

It seems to me that the statement of the deputy is a safe asser- 
tion: the laws of the State (especially in America) usually reflect 
the spirit of Masonry, and a Commander of the Scottish Rite 
could issue no order conflicting with the laws of the land; first, to 
do so would be violative of its own laws, and, second, as Masons 
are taught to exercise Reason and FREE conscience in all things, 
such an order, if it were possible to be issued, would have to 
undergo the acid test of a thorough investigation by unfettered 
conscience, and if it appeared to conflict with civil law, the Com- 
mander's sanity would be investigated! As I understand the 
order, Masons will not obey the commands of those in authority 
which conflict with the laws of the State, or that they consider 
violate their duty to themselves or their fellowman, and these 
issues are determined by the exercise of reason which no one in 
the order has the power to restrict. An official in a Masonic order 
can not prevent his commands from being questioned by subordi- 
nates, nor prevent them from citing officials to appear before 
tribunals for un-Masonic conduct (quite a contrast from the 
Motu Proprio decree of Pius X in favor of his hierarchy). The 
sermon of Phelan, as published in the Western Watchman, was a 
true expression of papal law, while it can not be proved from 
Masonic law that the quotations in paragraphs one and two were 
not mere oratorical effervescence. To any one appreciating the ob- 
jective of Freemasonry, those statements amount to nothing; a 
lawyer was pleading at the Macon bar: addressing the jury, he 
said, in answering a citation of law by the solicitor general, "I 



294 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

care nothing about the law in the case." If the court had taken 
him literally, he would have been disbarred. I do not condone the 
deputy or the lawyer. 

As far as my knowledge extends, the first three degrees of 
Masonry constitute what is known as the lodge of Master Masons, 
and the other degrees are taken in rotation, including the thirty- 
third, but they all have to begin at the bottom — no one can become 
a thirty-third degree Mason without being a Master Mason in 
good standing; therefore, it appears that Masonry builds from 
the ground up, regardless of what a deputy may say. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 27, 1917. 
Dear Sir: You seem so emphatically of the opinion that Cath- 
olics are not in conscience free that I am constrained to enlighten 
you further on this point. (1) 

(2) The distinguished Jesuit theologian, Busenbaum, whose 
moral theology has been used as a text in Catholic seminaries for 
much more than a century, teaches as follows: (Mor. theol. T. 
I-p. 54) : "A heretic, so long as he in conscience believes his sect 
to be more, or equally, deserving of belief, has to obligation no 
belief in the Church." 

(3) I commend this teaching to your very thoughtful consid- 
eration, with the suggestion that most men would be satisfied 
with the liberty of conscience it predicates. Busenbaum even 
adds : "When men who have been brought up in heresy are per- 
suaded from boyhood that we impugn and attack the Word of 
God, and that we are idolators, pestilent deceivers and, therefore, 
are to be shunned as pests, they cannot, while this persuasion 
lasts, with a safe conscience hear us." 

(4) Does not this fairly convince you that Catholics are truly 
taught that Conscience is King of the Soul? Here is a plain and 
unmistakable teaching that you would do wrong even to come to 
our churches, hear our preachers or read our books, if you are 
thoroughly persuaded that our teaching is, in a word, unscion- 
able. [?] If that is your view, we are told, you "CAN NOT, while 
this persuasion lasts, with a safe conscience, hear us." 

(5) Naturally the converse is true for us; but there is no 
"tyranny" in this, as you presuppose, no narrow-minded princi- 
ple. It simply carries into practice that the teaching that the fac- 
ulties of the soul, intellect, will, and all, must be obedient to the 
dictates of Conscience its King. 

For, as the Council of Lateran puts it, "He who acts against 
conscience, goes to hell." 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) Where a question is argued by papal theologians, there is 
but one way to ascertain the truth of the particular issue: con- 
sult the decrees of the pope; he alone has the right to proclaim 
"truth" and legislate for its preservance. That there is no "unity" 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 295 

in the teaching of the "fathers" I believe I have mentioned before, 
which fact is substantiated by FarrelVs citations. Liguori and 
St. Thomas are the principal Doctors of the papal church — he 
will never be able to quote from their doctrines favoring free con- 
science for Catholic or Protestant! 

A jurist may entertain an opinion of the law, but the opinion 
will be set aside if it is contrary to law; likewise, a Jesuit father 
may express an opinion, but it does not affect the law on the sub- 
ject. Now, let us examine the LAW and see if Busenbaum is 
even approximatey correct, which I will accept — for the moment: 

According to Canon Law, "A heretic is one who denies a defined 
and sufficiently proposed article of faith with error of intellect 
and pertinacity of will." 

Taunton's Canon Law: 'Tope Pius IX, Const. Apostolicae 
Sedis, 1869, decreed excommunication . . . against all and every 
heretic by whatever name; and also against their believers, re- 
ceivers, favourers, and defenders." (Busenbaum being appar- 
ently a defender of heretics, is excommunicated, according to 
this!) 

The Council of Trent, Sess. vii, can. 14, decreed : "If any one 
says that the baptized are not to be compelled to a Christian life 
by any other penalty save that they be excluded from the partici- 
pation of the Eucharist and of the other sacraments, let him be 
anathema." 

The Jesuit father, Taunton, incorporates in the Canon Law 
part of the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, the authenticity of 
which Mr. Farrell denied on more than one occasion: "N. 24. 
Pope Pius IX condemned the doctrine that the church had no 
right to coerce with penalties the violation of her laws; and he 
also condemned the proposition that the church had no power of 
inflicting punishment nor any temporal power, direct or indirect." 

From all this we learn that a "heretic" is one who examines 
the "divine law" to learn how to regulate his conduct through 
"the means of conscience" and refuses to let an Italian pope in 
Italy interpret it for him — he's a "chooser." So antagonistic is 
papalism to this principle, that excommunication was pronounced 
against any one who even defends or favors a heretic ! Mr. Far- 
rell will note that the Tridentine decree supra is several hundred 
years old, that of Pius IX about fifty — separately and jointly they 
nullify his citation from Busenbaum! 

The only real, fundamental difference between Roman Catho- 
lics and Protestants is found in the question of free conscience; 
Roman Catholics are required to see all things through the pope's 
eyes, while Protestants are called heretics because they use their 
own; this also involves the doctrine of free moral agency, teach- 
ing man's personal responsibility to God. Eliminate this, and 



296 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

there would be no Protestants: leave every man to the dictates 
of his own conscience and reason and there would be no Catholic 
church. According to Liguori, the subject must obey his religious 
superior, and if there be any sin attaching, the superior alone will 
be answerable to God ! 

I have treated of this letter as if it related to free conscience, 
but as a matter of fact it is a treatise on religious toleration; and 
beautiful, only it is not supported by LAW! 

It is a remarkable co-incidence that almost invariably the quo- 
tations by Farrell are so worded as to create the impression that 
he made errors, or that the citations are beyond human compre- 
hension: does he try to say in the second paragraph, last clause, 
"has no obligation to belief," etc.? 

The Busenbaum teaching is good Protestant doctrine, that no 
one should be forced to join any church, on the hypothesis that if 
God could sanction that means to convert the world to Jesus 
Christ, with the trump of angelic hosts He could announce that 
unless the people of earth turned to the Lord, He would strike 
them deaf, dumb, blind, or remove them from the earth by death. 
But the laws of the Roman church are against this doctrine of 
Busenbaum, which should be a matter of grave concern to Protes- 
tants. If every Catholic priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal and 
pope were to teach unequivocally that all heretics are going to 
hell, it would not destroy or ruffle the serene indifference of 
Protestantism — but for the papal institution to proclaim it has 
the right to employ force — as it has done — to make the baptized 
submit to the will of the pope, is a serious question for Protestants 
to settle. 

(1) "You seem so emphatically of the opinion that Catholics 
are not in conscience free," says Mr. Farrell ; the decree of Hilde- 
brand, or Pope Gregory VII, forbids priests to marry, to which 
decree they are, TO-DAY, obedient: are they governed in this 
by a free conscience, or controlled and directed by papal LAW? 
If one should say they are actuated by free conscience, then there 
was no need for the decree — and what shall be said of their con- 
science when they had wives before that decree was published? 
On the other hand, to say they are directed in the matter BY the 
decree is to acknowledge there is no free conscience with papal 
priests in the premises. In this connection, it may be impressive 
to again state that the "holy" fathers taught that, after the decree 
of celibacy was promulgated, it would be better for a priest to go 
wrong with a hundred different women than to marry ONE ! 
Was that the utterance of a free or controlled conscience? 

All that aside, however; the following is more to the point, 
from Bussambaum: 

"A man who has been excommunicated by the pope may be 
killed anywhere, as Escobar and Deaux teach, because the pope 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 297 

has an indirect jurisdiction over the whole world, even in tem- 
poral things, as all the Catholics maintain, and as Suarez proves 
against the King of England." — Bussambaum — Lacroi, Theol. 
Moralis. 

The Encyclical of Pope Pius IX, August 15, 1854, is instructive: 
"The absurd and erroneous doctrines, or ravings, in defense of 
liberty of conscience, are a most pestilential error, a pest of all 
others, to be dreaded in the State." 

Bussambaum and other "holy" fathers teach according to the 
decree of Gregory VII, that to kill an apostate, heretic, or ex- 
communicated man, is not murder, but a Christian act. 

Pius IX has excommunicated EVERY HERETIC IN AMER- 
ICA; the laws of that Italian institution teach that it is not sin- 
ful to kill those who have been excommunicated — certainly, Prot- 
estants should do all they can to advance the power of the papal 
church so its laws can be enforced against them and their children 
— some are doing this, aiding popery to the best of their ability ! 

The Jesuitical deceitfulness of Farrell's letter is exposed by 
history: if Protestants have the right "in conscience" to believe 
"his sect to be . . . deserving of belief," why did the Roman 
Catholics, being in the vast majority, kill so many of those who 
would not accept the papal doctrine? The facts prove that the 
early Protestant people preferred to die rather than submit to 
papal authority and dogma while the Catholic conscience de- 
manded their death. What do we learn from the bishop's oath, 
to-day? 

If a person is born a Roman Catholic or voluntarily joins that 
church, he is oath-bound to support the laws and dogmas of the 
papal church — support those things that gave the world the Dark 
Ages and set up the Inquisition which blighted Europe with papal 
domination for hundreds of years and made and unmade kings 
and controlled secular powers; the Inquisition was introduced 
into various countries by order of the "holy father," head of the 
"only true" church, under the immediate direction of papal priests 
and papal puppet rulers, like the King of Spain, who gathered 
wood in his arms with which to burn heretics — this crew of the 
pope, like a pack of hell-hounds chasing a rabbit, ferreted out 
heretics and tortured them by every means of cruelty which 
eclipsed anything the German Kaiser did during the Great 
War: Jews, Protestants, Greeks, all hounded to death and their 
property confiscated to be divided between pope and king! I re- 
peat: if those murdered people had the right Farrell says Busen- 
baum taught, why were they killed like wild animals ? They were 
slain by the Catholic conscience — has it changed since then? 
THE LAW REQUIRES THAT RULE OF CONDUCT, NOW! 
And if any Catholic in the world is subject thereto, every one in 
Georgia — in MACON — is! 



298 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

In paragraph 5 Mr. Farrell says that the Busenbaum teaching 
regarding heretics applies also to Catholics — that "the faculties 
of the soul, intellect, will, and all, must be obedient to the dic- 
tates of Conscience its King," which is untrue : for the law of the 
papal church requires the "intellect" to assent internally or ex- 
ternally to the pope's laws and dogmas, as expressed by Leo 
XIII, who said there must be "complete submission of will to the 
pope as to God Himself." If that does not make the pope "King 
of the soul" there is no pope. 

If Roman Catholics were in conscience free, there would be no 
law prohibiting them from attending Protestant churches and 
reading Protestant religious literature; but there are laws gov- 
erning these matters to which Catholics are obedient. I am still 
most emphatically of the opinion that Catholics are not in con- 
science free according to the meaning of the word, which is: "To 
know; a self-knowledge, by which one determines the issues of 
right and wrong." 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 28, 1917. 

Dear Sir: You may say, nevertheless, the pope rules the con- 
science and, therefore, the soul, of a Catholic. This is your final 
retreat, and now I shall drive you from that. 

Some Catholic theologians have written straight to the point, 
and I venture to express the view that after reading their teach- 
ing on it, unless you can offer an acknowledged Catholic teacher 
who teaches the contrary, which I know you cannot, even you will 
be persuaded that you were mistaken. 

The Franciscan teacher, Corduba, says: "In no matter is it 
lawful to act against conscience, even though a Superior or a law 
direct it." (De Conscient., p. 138.) Surely, this must include the 
pope in its terms, so that, if even the pope directed an act against 
conscience it would not be lawful to obey. And this, even though 
a pope directed a right thing and the dictate of conscience on the 
matter was wrong, as is possible; still, it would not be lawful to 
go against conscience, for "who acts against conscience goes to 
hell." 

And so, the celebrated Dominican theologian, Natalis Alexan- 
der, wrote : "If, in the judgment of conscience, though a mistaken 
conscience, a man is persuaded that what his superior commands 
is displeasing to God, he is bound not to obey." Here again, the 
word "superior" must include even the pope. Do you not agree? 

Or, do you think, perchance, that you can somehow twist a knot 
into a language as plain as this and just possibly get a grip that 
will not slip? Do not think it, my friend, for such a knot need not. 
even be untied; it could be simply cut, as we shall next see. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

comment 
The "teacher" of a Roman Catholic is his priest, who gets his 
authority from the pope, and when he makes an assertion regard- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 299 

ing a question, he knows that is forever "closed" to Catholics, and 
does not seem to understand it does not have the same effect on 
Protstants. 

In paragraph 3 we find that "Corduba says: 'In no matter is it 
lawful','' according to Farrell, " 'to act against conscience'." 
Where an issue is to be determined by law, it is necessary to know 
the law relating to it; if there is legislation pertaining thereto, 
then the LAWFULNESS of the question is decided by it, and all 
informed people know that there is a law which would FORCE 
PROTESTANTS INTO the papal church and in its operation 
PREVENTS CATHOLICS FROM LEAVING. After the pope 
MAKES AND FORMS the conscience, of course then, "who acts 
against conscience goes to hell." 

That the papal church recognizes only the pope-made con- 
science is shown by the laws of the institution, and it is patent to 
even superficial critics that if the right of a private person to act 
according to conscience was true, THERE COULD BE NO 
LAW COERCING INDIVIDUALS in the matter of joining or 
leaving the Roman church. 

Mr. Farrell says I cannot offer an acknowledged Catholic 
teacher in opposition to Corduba, but I can; here is the teaching 
that governs ALL Catholics in the world, from the Council of 
Trent; it says, Sess. vii, Can. 14, that "// anyone says that the 
BAPTIZED" (Protestants) "are not to be COMPELLED to a 
Christian" (papal) "life by any other penalty save that they be 
excluded from the participation of the Eucharist and of the other 
sacraments, let him be anathema." This LAW nullifies the mere 
opinion of Corduba cited by Farrell, as he knew, and makes it 
sublimely ridiculous to contend that the Roman church grants a 
free conscience yet requires use of FORCE to make one subscribe 
to its dogmas and submit to the authority of the pope. 

"In no matter is it lawful," says this writer, but the above is 
the LAW which MAKES it lawful. WHO is the teacher in the 
Italian institution, the pope, or some Francsican monkl Other 
authorities could be cited, but every Catholic in the world is sworn 
by solemn oath to be ruled by the Tridentine decrees — that's 
enough in answer to Corduba. 

If "conscience" rules the soul according to precepts of "the 
divine law," and the pope alone is the teacher of what is "divine 
law," then the Catholic conscience, logically, will reflect the law 
only as it is made known by the supreme teacher, the pope. 

The consideration of this subject depicts Jesuit subtlety. If 
there is to be a true conscience, it must be secured through the 
Word of God, as it alone defines right and wrong. If this knowl- 
edge could have been secured otherwise, that would also be in the 
Bible, in which case, as we see, it would be absurd and presump- 
tuous to say "In no matter will I act against conscience, even 



300 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

though" God "directs it," as that would be making- the human 
mind the equal of, if not superior to, the mind of God: the crea- 
ture co-equal with the Creator: destroy the Eternal Trinity by 
making all men capable of being worthy of admission thereto — in 
other words, that doctrine followed to its logical and only conclu- 
sion would make each one a "pope," which would as certainly de- 
stroy the papal kingdom as it now destroys God's ! Can a papist 
dispute this? No: and if it is admitted, he must also admit there 
can be no truth in the above citation by Farrell. (The papal 
church, like a great circus, has something which it thinks will 
please most anybody who attends!) 

In the fourth paragraph Mr. Farrell opens up a new "ring" by 
presenting a Dominican theologian — one of the most ferocious 
types in the whole menagerie — and again I ask, WHO is the chief 
"actor" in this papal show, a Dominican theologian, or the pope? 
Who is the "supreme" director, a Dominican friar or the pope of 
Rome? 

As I have remarked before, there is no "unity" in the teaching 
of the holy fathers which priests swear to follow in their preach- 
ing; and where we desire to know the truth, we must consult the 
law relating to the question, and its physical manifestations: 
To the Dominicans especially was committed the glorious work 
of the "holy" Inquisition; THAT fact buries the "celebrated theo- 
logian, Natalis Alexander" and his theology so deep Mr. Farrell 
will never be able to get him to the surface again ; if he will turn 
to the "celebrated" guide-book for Inquisitors, the Directorium 
Inquisitorium of the "celebrated Nicholas Eymeric, the Domini- 
can Inquisitor-General of Aragon," he will find there collated all 
the fiendish, un-Christian, anti-heretical laws of the papal church 
which authorized the hellish Inquisition, from which the follow- 
ing is cited : Gregory IX, Vicar of Jesus Christ ( ! ) ordered : 
"If any of the aforesaid (heretics) refuse to perform condign 
penance after they have been apprehended, they are to be shut up 
in prison for life," also, "Let all understand that they are ab- 
solved from all allegiance to their civil ruler when he has fallen 
into manifest heresy, and from all service to any one, no matter 
how sacredly pledged and promised." ("Keep no faith with here- 
tics!") The legislation of Pope Innocent III therein: "We strictly 
forbid you lawyers and notaries from giving any assistance, coun- 
sel or favor to heretics, their supporters or defenders. ... If you 
presume to act contrariwise to this regulation, we decree that you 
be removed from your calling and subjected to perpetual infamy" 
—and I have failed to learn of ANY ONE suffering "infamy" for 
violating any of these "regulations" in favor of the helpless vic- 
tims who fell into the clutches of those Dominican hell-hounds! 
And I dare and invite Mr. Farrell and the whole Association of 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 301 

Georgia to attempt to impeach those citations before any public 
assembly of citizens in this State ! 

All through life a Catholic is taught that the papal church is 
a divine institution, incorruptible and indefectible; from it he 
gets his conscience — and its manifestations will accord in all 
things with the will of the pope who has taught him what is right 
and wrong. 

Canon 14 above cited is the law authorizing the pope to employ 
FORCE against the baptized to make them obedient to the church, 
so in one sense it may teach that "he who acts against conscience 
goes to hell" as it simply means, first, that heretics have no con- 
science, therefore it is the duty of the church to force them under 
the authority of the pope so they may secure it by which they are 
to distinguish between good and evil according to the "divine law" 
per his dictum, and if they refuse, the Catholic conscience is 
trained to make sure that heretics "go to hell" on earth. "Ask 
any ex-priest or ex-nun." 

If the papal church has the right to COMPEL, then it exercises 
the rule of MIGHT instead of RIGHT; direction by force rather 
than by conscience — the iron-rule of the trenches ! This rule for- 
ever precludes exercises of a free conscience, and is contrary to 
the laws of nature, human experience extending over a period of 
approximately two thousand years, and is in antagonism with the 
purpose of man's creation. 

Christ said "Whosoever will" — that's free conscience; 

The pope says "Everybody must" — a fetter to conscience. 

While these principles are irreconcilably antagonistic, they are 
the rules by which Protestants and Catholics shape their conduct 
in regard to all matters affecting human society. 

Protestants live or die in defense of their rule, Romanism is 
governed by expediency. 

To say that they are obedient to the pope only in accepting his 
definitions of faith and morals — and "morals" covers everything 
pertaining to civil government and life — but they would act 
according to "conscience" and refuse to obey the pope's discipline 
and regulatory decrees puts Catholics in the position of a wife 
who says "In SPIRIT, I am obedient unto the will of my husband, 
but in BODY I am FREE to ANY MAN." When Farrell can 
name one contented normal man living under that rule, I will 
admit the Roman church permits free conscience. 

To read "the writings of the holy fathers" is to become in- 
veigled in a maze of confusing contradictions, from which there 
is no escape — unless you turn to the LAW, which will set you 
right! In concluding this discussion it is pertinent to ask why 
Farrell did not cite the LAW to prove that Catholics have a right 
to free conscience instead of confining himself to creatures of the 
pope? I asked him many times to prove his position by such au- 



302 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

thoritative citations, but he would not — was it because they do 
not exist? Evidently! 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 28, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Speaking of authority and obedience as viewed by 
Masons: 

Dr. Oliver in his book of Science and Symbols, p. 264, says: 
"The Master's authority in the lodge is as the sun in the firma- 
ment." Section 2 of the Old Charges of Masonry declares it to be 
the attitude of every Mason "to pay due reverence to the Masters 
and to put them to work." Section 4 says, that the Masters are 
"to be obeyed by all the members with humility and love." 

In Dr. Mackey's Lexicon, published in 1869, at p. 331, referring 
to these charges it is said, "This spirit of obedience runs through 
the whole system of Masonry," and in the Encyclopedia of Free 
Masonry, published in 1910, at page 541 of Vol. I, it is said: "The 
FIRST duty of every Mason is to obey the mandate of the Mas- 
ter. . . . This spirit of instant obedience and submission is the 
safeguard of the institution. . . . The Masonic rule is like the 
nautical imperative 'obey orders even if you break owners'." 

Yet you complain that Catholics are like children. 
Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

Mr. Farrell "ought at least to get the main facts right, lest 
malice betray ignorance" in discussing matters of which he ap- 
parently has no "first-hand" knowledge, even though it could be 
secured for the asking; section 2 of "the Old Charges" seem to be 
erroneously quoted, as I do not see how they, the laymen of the 
lodge, can "put them" (the masters) "to work." 

From the literature in hand I learn that the principal tenents 
of Masonry are Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth; that the pre- 
siding officer is called the "Master," whose relation to the lodge 
when it is in session is as that of a superintendent constructing a 
building: he must see that every officer ("foreman") under him 
is capable, and obedient to his orders, and that it is his duty and 
responsibility to maintain a strict oversight to insure the erection 
of a structure according to the plans, specifications, etc., of the 
architect: that the Word of God is used as the "plans and speci- 
fications" for the erection of a temple to please the Great Archi- 
tect, God, and that when the day's work is done — when the lodge 
closes — this relationship to all intents and purposes terminates, 
to be resumed when work again begins. Freemasonry, as I under- 
stand it, works just like operative masons in erecting a building, 
the difference being that instead of building a material temple 
with wood and iron and stone the fraternity is erecting a Temple 
of Brotherly Love from which is to flow a desire for the Relief 
of human ills, whose word shall be accepted as the Truth by all 
men. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 303 

"The FIRST duty of every Mason is to obey the mandate of 
the Master" may be true, first, because "every Mason" assisted 
in electing him to that position in the lodge; second, because 
"every Mason" knows the principles, laws, rules and regulations 
of the order, and if the Master acts in violation of them, there is 
no "MOTU PROPRIO" decree to prevent his "inferiors" from 
citing him to trial nor to prevent them from haling him before 
"lay" tribunals when they "chance" to see him committing grave 
sins; they may also appeal from his decisions; these are a few of 
the differences between Masons and their Masters and lay Cath- 
olics and their Priests which any intelligent person can appre- 
ciate without an extended discussion; when the lodge adjourns, 
officers and members recognize no "inferiors" and "superiors," 
therefore I continue to "complain that Catholics are like chil- 
dren," as they must consider themselves inferiors who have no 
right to question commands issued by the priest which he may 
say come from the pope. 

Masons may "obey orders" even if they "break owners" — but 
a Mason will not obey an order to break the necks of those who 
are not members ; quite a difference. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 28, 1917. 
Dear Sir : And in reference to Loyalty and Obedience : 

(1) In 1757 the Synod of Scotland declared, that: "All who fail 
to abstain from connection with Masonry shall be reputed under 
scandal and incapable of admission to stealing ordinances." 

(2) The Synod laid five grounds for this action against Masons 
— 1st, they take an oath; 2nd, administered before the communi- 
cations (blind oath) ; 3rd, accompanied by superstitious ceremo- 
nies; 4th, attended by a penalty (even capital); 5th, considered, 
by Masons, as paramount to the obligations of the law of the 
land." 

(3) At page 538 in Vol. I of the Masonic Encyclopedia, in refer- 
ence to these grounds laid against Masons, it is said: "In reply- 
ing to these statements, the conscientious Freemason ... is at 
every step restrained by his honor from either denial or admis- 
sion." 

(4) Do you think anything is to be gained by incrimination and 
recrimination by Catholics and Masons? Do you not think that 
good citizens should be about a more edifying and peace-making 
work? 

(5) We do, and that is the reason of our Plea for Peace, which 
we still urge. Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) Again Mr. Farrell attempts to quote from an "acknowledged 
Catholic teacher," the Synod of Scotland; while he has no doubt 
"mutilated it beyond all recognition," yet as rendered I am fully 
pursuaded it is correct in its "mutilated" form : I believe Masons 



304 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

to be generally "incapable of admission to stealing ordinances." 
(No doubt he meant to say "sealing"?) 

(2) These five charges against Masonry can be sustained by 
the pope to the satisfaction of a Catholic, for it is against the law 
of the church for a Romanist to read or have in his possession any 
book defending or explaining Masonry. This is the law of the 
papal Index and its Rules, and upon this rock the papacy wrecks 
free conscience; the pope declares Freemasonry is "essentially 
opposed to natural virtue" — (but its "superiors" do not teach that 
it is better for them to go wrong with a hundred different women 
belonging to other men than to marry one) — and every Romanist 
must sing, "I say so, too!" phonograph-like, while priest-editors 
keep them in tune; they have not learned, from a personal, indi- 
vidual study that Freemasonry is of the devil, but what knowl- 
edge they have they get from the pope — yet Mr. Farrell says in 
this as in all other matters Catholics are governed by "Conscince, 
the King of the Soul" ! 

Let us examine the five charges against Freemasonry, and see 
if they are true, and if the pope has something better to offer as 
a substitute for this Philosophy which he condemns : 

Says the Synod: "1st, they take an oath"; there is no organi- 
zation in the world — social, political, fraternal or religious — or 
business transaction, that does not exact some sort of pledge, 
promise, or oath. This fact is so universal, I merely mention it. 

Where an institution exacts an oath of allegiance and obedi- 
ence, its objective as an organization is to be found in its laws, 
rules, decrees, tenets, history, and its source of inspiration (direct- 
ing power) ; from these the "intention" and ultimate result hoped 
for will be manifested. 

In "Akin's Lodge Manual and Masonic Law Digest, the Stan- 
dard for Georgia," published in 1895 (same year as my copy of 
Pontificale Romanum containing Catholic bishop's oath), by John 
W. Akin, a 32d degree Mason, officially adopted by the Grand 
Lodge of Georgia in 1894, I find in the Petition for Membership 
which the candidate signs that the first question propounded is, 
"1. Do you seriously declare, upon your honor, that, unbiased by 
the improper solicitation of friends and uninfluenced by merce- 
nary motives, you freely offer yourself as a candidate for the 
mysteries of Freemasonry?" Nothing here suggesting one may 
be "born" subject to Masonry, or that FORCE may be used to 
make non-Masons submit to its rules and authority, as in the 
papal system ! 

Akin further teaches: "The Three Great Tenets of a Mason's 
profession are Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth," while the four 
cardinal virtues, "Temperance, Fortitude, Prudence, and Justice" 
are inculcated in the first lessons. 

According to Akin's Manual, and that by George E. Simons and 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 305 

Robert Macoy, the latter being a 32d-degree Mason of New York, 
the following is in the Charge delivered to Masons: 

"In the State you are to be a quiet and peaceable subject, true to 
your government and just to your country. You are not to counte- 
nance disloyalty or rebellion, but patiently submit to legal au- 
thority and conform with cheerfulness to the government under 
which you live, yielding obedience to the laws which afford you 
protection," Simon's, p. 52. 

"You are not to countenance disloyalty" — this duty is chal- 
lenged by the bishop's oath! 

Now listen to the supreme ruler of Catholics; said Leo XIII: 
"If the laws of the State violate . . in the person of the Supreme 
Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist be- 
comes a positive duty; to obey, a crime." Should the State refuse 
the papal church "due liberty of action," defined by the pope as 
being the rights of "a perfect society," then Catholics may seek a 
"change of government." Quite a difference between the teaching 
of the two institutions ! ( To what extent did the Masonic charge 
influence "our" administration to bar Freemasonry from army 
cantonments?) 

Both Masonic Manuals say that when a man has been elected 
to serve for one year, he must assent in open lodge to the "regula- 
tions which point out the duty of the Master of a Lodge," and that 
he must answer affirmatively certain questions, among which are 
the following: 

"I. You agree to be a good man and true, and strictly to obey 
the moral law? 

"II. You agree to be a peaceable citizen and cheerfully to con- 
form to the laws of the country in which you reside? 

"III. You promise not to be concerned in plots and conspiracies 
against the government, but patiently submit to the law and con- 
stituted authorities? 

"V. You agree to . . . submit to the awards and resolutions 
of your brethren, in lodge convened, in every case consistent with 
the Constitutions of the Fraternity? 

"VI. You agree to avoid personal piques and quarrels, and to 
guard against intemperance and excess? 

"IX. You agree to promote the general good of society, to culti- 
vate the social virtues? 

"X. You promise ... to conform to every edict of the Grand 
Lodge THAT IS NOT subversive to the principles and ground- 
work of Masonry? 

"XI. You admit it is not in the power of any man, or body of 
men, to make innovations in the body of Masonry?" 

When a man is put at the head of a Lodge by his brethren he 
swears to be governed by these and similar laws of the order: 
can the Roman church prove a loyalty to God, man, and country 
as true as this? 



306 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

These articles form part of the pledge the presiding officer of 
the lodge makes, while the "brethren" are required on their part 
to be obedient to him, so long as he is true to it; but they have a 
right, which they would not be slow to exercise, to question and 
even oppose his rule; can a Catholic layman question the rule of 
the priest? No, because he has nothing to do with his selection. 
To whom does the priest pledge allegiance, the pope or the coun- 
try that protects him? 

If the Grand Master should issue a decree, each Master of a 
Masonic lodge is bound, by Art. X, to resist it if in obedience 
thereto there would be an ''innovation in the body of Masonry," 
and the matter would be carried up for review by the Grand Lodge 
at its next session: to whom may a Catholic layman or priest 
appeal against the decree of a pope? There is but one appeal: 
withdrawal from papal authority. 

All Masonic Jurisprudence and Law reflect the influence of the 
Landmarks of Freemasonry as shown by the manuals ; they tem- 
per its mandates and epitomize its law. With the Bible as its 
guide, Masonry lays a golden chain along the rugged pathway of 
life to assist travelers to keep in the right path on their journey 
in following the Light which leads the Creature back to its 
Creator; it is like fragrant flowers which beautify the landscapes 
and sweeten the air, offering cheer and refreshment when the bur- 
dens seem heaviest; like songbirds in trees and meadows and the 
fruits of vineyards and orchards affording joy, food and shelter 
to travel-worn pilgrims, Freemasonry fits in with the other good 
things of God's universe — not as a "religion," but her hand-maid : 
like the mother-eagle which feeds and protects her young till they 
develop the strength necessary to wing their own nights, soaring 
above storm-clouds, vanishing in heaven's blue or resting upon 
mountain peaks, so Masonry places the feet of man in the right 
way, assists him to recognize his duty to God and fellow-travelers, 
directs his vision toward the Great Architect and all His works, 
aids him to break down every barrier that would restrain the ac- 
tivities of the mind and intellect and keep them from soaring 
above the highest known heights of human knowledge and attain- 
ment, places in his hand the Master Key, FREEDOM OF CON- 
SCIENCE, and teaches that he is at liberty and has an inherent 
right to unlock any door in his search for TRUTH and LIGHT: 
here, Freemasonry stops. To go further, it would be necessary 
to employ FORCE, then there would be no "FREE" Masonry. 

As religion, Protestantism fosters Freemasonry, as their prin- 
ciples and aims are alike in all things except the former prepares 
the soul for time and eternity, while the latter assists its votaries 
for time and prevents restricting their right to choose beyond 
this. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 307 

"They take an oath," said the "holy fathers" of the Scotland 
Synod. Yes; Masonry is but a philosophy, with fixed principles 
and tenets upon which to work, Brotherly Love, Relief, and 
Truth; Temperance, Fortitude, Prudence, and Justice. With 
these principles as its foundation, what could be the nature of its 
oath? Dr. W. L. Pickard, former President of Mercer University, 
Macon, Ga., a Baptist minister and high degree Mason, a man of 
unquestioned veracity and integrity, said: "The penalty for its 
violation (the Masonic oath) is to be visited upon himself, never 
upon anybody else," which seems to comport well with the princi- 
pal tenet of the order, FREEDOM, which makes it impossible for 
the order to exact a promise from a candidate to inflict punish- 
ment upon some one else, for I am sure the oath must be in line 
with the Articles above quoted from the Manual, wherein he 
swears to benefit all mankind. Furthermore, from the very nature 
of the institution, whatever oath is taken must be voluntarily 
assumed and could not possibly be a pledge to inflict a penalty 
according to the "INTENTION" of the order, but if there be a 
penalty, he must himself suffer it. 

We will now look at papal oaths ! When a pope is elected by 
cardinals to hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, 
among other things he swears to wrest from the people the papal 
princedom: "We are moved to demand this ... by Our sacred 
promise confirmed on oath," p. 15, Encyclical Letters. 

The oath of cardinals, as printed in the London Daily Telegraph 
December 1, 1911, and confirmed by Monsignor Canon Moyse, in 
The Tablet (Catholic), December 16, is in part as follows: 

"I . . . promise and swear ... to be faithful and obedient to 
. . . our Most Holy Lord Pius X. ... To be ever ready to . . . 
fight with all zeal, and all my forces" in behalf of papal agents, 
"to resist even to the shedding of blood whosoever would attempt 
anything against them. ... To try in every way to assert, up- 
hold, preserve, increase, and promote the rights, even temporal, 
especially those of civil principality, the liberty, the honor, privi- 
leges, and authority of . . . the pope. ... To combat with every 
effort, heretics, schismatics, and those rebelling against our Lord 
the Pope. ... To observe minutely each and all of the decrees." 

The bishop's oath would be pertinent here, but I am reserving 
it for another place, where it will be quoted in full. 

The Bible being the rule and guide, Freemasonry could promul- 
gate nothing but humane principles, which renders it impossible 
to have an oath directed against any one except he who takes it, 
while Roman Catholicism sets up "the rules of the holy fathers, 
the apostolic decrees" as the guide and, where expedient, speedily 
consigns to purgatory all who will not submit to them. 

Masonry requires a man to uphold the laws of the land — Cath- 
olics are taught to resist them where they conflict with papal law, 



308 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

as in the United States; according to the Manual, it would con- 
stitute an offense against the order for a Mason to solicit mem- 
bers, while Romanism attempts to close every avenue and uses 
every device known to man and devil to make the human race 
travel the pope's highway, or be "extirpated." 

Farrell says the next charge is "2d, administered before the 
communications (blind oath)"; just what the church of Rome 
presumes to charge here must be something awful ! I fail to grasp 
it — perhaps because I am neither Catholic or Mason — so must 
resort to conjecture; but if Masons take a ''blind oath," whatever 
that means, I am sure it does not require the candidate to consider 
it "most inhuman to let those go unharmed" who do not care to 
take it, neither have I found where Masonry claims the right to 
"employ force" to make men assume the oath; I am also equally 
sure it does not require its votaries to hound down the man who 
leaves the order. If Masons do take a blind oath and if it is some- 
thing fierce, surely, surely it can not be more "blind" than that 
sworn by those who join the papal church, or more inhuman than 
that the bishop swears and to which every papist is subject! 

Next charge: "3rd, accompanied by superstitious ceremonies." 
Just what may constitute "superstition" in a papal sense is quite 
difficult to determine, unless it declares the Bible to be a super- 
stitious fabrication. But speaking of superstition : Masonry does 
not teach people to wear scapulars to prevent sickness and 
frighten evil spirits away, as Romanism does, getting good money 
for them; Masonry does not dispense candles and holy water to 
secure hard-earned money, to scare off evil spirits, as Romanism 
does; Masonry does not fondle dead men's bones and teach that to 
look upon them will cure disease and charge fancy prices for a 
peep at them, as Romanism does; Masonry does not sell indul- 
gences which are as licenses to commit sin, as Romanism does; 
Masonry does not have several ''true" dead heads of an ancient 
craftsman in several different places to be venerated, as Roman- 
ism does; Masonry does not teach its votaries to buy from "supe- 
riors" images representing dead people, and pray to them for 
special favors, as Romanism does; a Master of a lodge does not 
say he has been delegated with the power of making Jesus Christ 
condense Himself into a little piece of pancake and require the 
members to first bow down in worshipful adoration of the God of 
Masonry then eat Him, as Romanism does; etc., etc., and etc., as 
Romanism does, and when a Mason reaches the end of his journey 
he does not send for the Master of a lodge to grease his feet and 
place lighted candles in his hands according to the rites of ancient 
paganism and after death burden his survivors with purgatorial 
graft, as Romanism does, because the guide-book is open and 
available to all alike, so that if some "superior" should attempt 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 309 

to perpetrate any of these things on the membership, a new supe- 
rior would be needed in quick order ! 

In the ''Catechism of Perseverance," published by Kelly & Peat, 
Baltimore, 1866, approved by "Martin J., Bishop of Louisville; 
Michael, Bishop of Mobile; Anthony, Bishop of New Orleans; 
John, Bishop of Galveston," will be found the following un- 
Masonic but Roman Catholic doctrine: 

"Q. What are the effects of holy water? A. The effects of holy 
water are: 1st, to chase away the devil; 2d, to aid in healimg the 
sick; 3d, to obtain help from God; 4th, to aid in the remission of 
venial sin. 

"Q. Why is the sprinkling of holy water in the church? A. It 
is made to chase away the devil and to purify the faithful, so that 
they may assist at the mass with attention, innocence and piety," 
p. 360. 

"Q. What is the scapular? A. The scapular is a devotion in 
honor of the Blessed Virgin, which was revealed to the Blessed 
Simon Stock, Superior of the Carmelites, in the twelfth century. 

(TWELVE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER Christ said His 
work of redemption was "finished" the pope says that Mary the 
mother of God revealed to a monk that Christ was mistaken — 
that the scapular was needed to "finish" His work — and it does, 
with many.) 

"Q. What did the Blessed Virgin promise to Simon Stock? 
A. She promised him: 1st, to obtain for those who should wear the 
scapular, extraordinary grace for obtaining a good death. But 
this does not mean that all who wear the scapular are assured of 
their salvation. ( !) 2d, She promised to deliver from Purgatory, 
the Saturday after their death, all the departed members of the 
confraternity," p. 295. 

(So Mary did not agree to assure salvation to all scapular 
wearers, but will at least get them out of purgatory; that helps 
some!) 

"Q. What is the rosary? A. The rosary is a devotion in honor 
of the Blessed Virgin ; which consists in reciting, each week, three 
pairs of beads of FIFTEEN DECADES . . . 

"Q. Who established the rosary? A. St. Dominic was directed 
by the Blessed Virgin to establish the rosary at the commence- 
ment of the THIRTEENTH century. This devotion has been 
the means of gaining the greatest favors. . . . We should join in 
this devotion, for we have the most pressing need for the protec- 
tion of the BLESSED VIRGIN," p. 396. 

This Catechism certainly proves the existence of a purgatory: 

"Q. What is the Fifth? 

"A. The fifth proof of purgatory is the traditions of the pagans 
themselves. We see in their history that they offered sacrifices 
for the dead, and that they prayed for them; this usage is found 
even among savage nations." 

(If Catholic laymen would scan pagan history, they would also 
find that they had a "Mother of God," "holy water," "scapulars" 



310 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

to chase the devil or evil spirits away with, and to cure sickness, 
etc., as well as purgatory for themselves after death!) 

So, the Roman church opposes Freemasonry because it prac- 
tices superstition: 

Superstition may be denned as belief of "idle fancies," "belief 
of what is absurd," or "belief without evidence." So far I have 
not been able to discover any foundation for this charge against 
Freemasonry in any of its literature or laws, nor evidences of it 
in members of the order. In this connection, bearing in mind 
what superstition means, I will put Leo XIII up as a witness, to 
prove that Freemasonry is not superstitious. In his Encyclical 
against Freemasonry he charges that Freemasons "allow no 
dogma of religion or truth which can not be understood by the 
human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought to be believed by 
reason of his authority," p. 90. Hundreds of years ago, the papal 
church would "extirpate" Masonry charging it with being super- 
stitious, while in our day the pope says Freemasonry ought to be 
"extirpated" as a foul plague, and calls on Mary to help, because 
Masons will not believe what can not be proven, nor believe a 
thing to be so merely because some other man declares it is true. 
In this matter, I find the church at two different periods as far 
apart as the poles, the only point on which it always agrees is, 
that Freemasonry should be destroyed, and calls on all the faith- 
ful to plead with the heavenly hosts to help them do it ! 

In truth, I wish I could say that in my limited research I had 
not found evidences of superstition in the papal system — but I 
can not. 

I discovered so much in that religion that seems to me to be 
superstitious: "idle fancies," "absurd," and "belief without evi- 
dence," as to be at a loss where to start to tell about it; I have 
decided, though, to present a few citations from a book called 
"The Glories of Mary" by "St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of 
the Church," printed by Benziger Bros., "Printers to the Holy 
Apostolic See," New York. (He was the inventor of the code 
used in the confessional.) He has been made a saint by the papal 
church, and his writings and teaching have been adopted as the 
standard along certain lines for the whole Roman church, so that 
what he teaches has the same weight with all Roman Catholics as 
that of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul or Peter with Protes- 
tants — in other words, the pope's church requires a Romanist to 
believe in Liguori's doctrines as much as they do in Christ's, so 
that he has been made "the Doctor of the Church." 

As these citations are read, remember they are not nursery 
yarns or fairy tales for children, but were written for priest and 
layman alike, which must be believed. The following are selected 
from Vols. I and II of Liguori's work. Says he: 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 311 

"I have endeavored to collect, from as many authors as I could 
lay my hands on, the choicest passages extracted from Fathers 
and theologians . . . and have put them together in this book, in 
order that the devout may ... be able to inflame themselves 
with the love of Mary, and more particularly to furnish priests 
with matter for their sermons, wherewith to excite others to de- 
votion towards this divine Mother." 

(I note that his "choicest passages" were from fathers and 
authors beginning about the year 589 on through the Dark Ages 
— the darkest period furnishing the most glorious and choice 
passage.) 

Says Liguori: "St. Bonaventure says that those who make a 
point of announcing to others the glories of Mary are certain of 
heaven; and this opinion is confirmed by Richard of St. Lawrence, 
who declares, 'that to honor this Queen of Angels is to gain eternal 
life'; and adds, 'that this most gracious Lady will honor in the 
next world those who honor her in this'." 

He says that "all graces are dispensed by Mary, and that all 
who are saved are saved only by means of this divine Mother, 
it is a necessary consequence that the salvation of all depends 
upon preaching Mary and exciting all to confidence in her inter- 
cession." (This dispenses with the Holy Spirit's office; the Bible 
says that the Spirit makes intercession for us with groanings 
which can not be uttered.) 

That "when the Blessed Virgin conceived the Eternal Word in 
her womb and brought Him forth, she obtained half the kingdom 
of God; so that she is Queen of Mercy, as Jesus Christ is King of 
Justice," (!) and "that the Eternal Father gave the office of 
Judge and Avenger to the Son, and that of showing Mercy and 
relieving the necessitous to the Mother." ( !) 

He says that Mary appeared to "St. Bridget" and said: "I am 
the joy of the just, and the door through which sinners are 
brought to God," and that any one can return to God "and enjoy 
His mercy, if he invokes my aid." 

As an example of Mary's power and care, Liguori tells of a 
woman who was so loathed that she had to live and die alone in a 
cave; four years after death, the suffering soul appealed to 
Sister Catherine and complained that she did not have compas- 
sion on and pray for her; that at the last moment before death 
she had called on Mary and had been saved, and Mary had se- 
cured a reduction of her time in purgatory which would require 
" 'only a feiv masses to be entirely delivered; . . . Sister Catherine 
immediately had the masses said," and the soul went on to para- 
dise! (Masses cost money — do priests give value received? Any- 
thing absurd about this?) 

A young man in England in 1430, so the next story goes, be- 
came a monk ; later, left the monastery and became a very wicked 
man; he conducted an inn, and at night murdered many of those 
who put up with him; he was tried and sentenced to be hanged; 
when he was thrown from the ladder which was to break his neck, 
Mary "loosened the rope and then addressed him, saying, 'Go, re- 
turn to thy monastery, do penance'." 



312 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

That Mary "was truly made a mediatress of peace between 
sinners and God"; "the sinner's ladder." 

"Mary is that happy ark in which those who take refuge will 
never suffer the shipwreck of eternal perdition." 

A "widow woman named Ellen went to the foot of an altar of 
the Blessed Virgin. . . ." Mary addressed her from her image: 
"Ellen, thou hast already too much offended God and me . . . 
change thy life. . . . Before her death . . . Mary came herself, 
with her divine Son, to visit her." 

"All the graces that God dispenses to men pass through the 
hands of Mary." 

"Take away the sun, and where will be the day? Take away 
Mary, and what will be left, but the darkest night?" 

"He falls and is lost who has not recourse to Mary." 

"A bird was taught to say 'Hail, Mary!' A hawk was on the 
point of seizing it, when the bird cried out, 'Hail, Mary!' In an 
instant the hawk fell dead." (?!) 

"Modern heretics can not endure that we should salute and call 
Mary our hope: 'Hail, our Hope!' . . The Holy Church OBLIGES 
ALL ecclesiastics and religious each day to raise their voices . . . 
and call Mary the sweet name of Our Hope: — the help of all." 

Liguori says, "The Angelical Doctor, St. Thomas (Aquinas), 
says . . . 'The King of Heaven has given us his own Mother to 
be our mother and advocate; . . . and therefore he wills that we 
should repose our hope of salvation and of every blessing in her'." 

"Thou, O Mary, art the propitiatory of the whole world." 

"Blessed Albert of Celles expressly declares 'that when we find 
Mary, we find all'." 

"A gentleman was tenderly devoted to the divine Mother . . . 
frequently during the night he rose for the purpose of honoring 
his Blessed Lady." His wife, thinking he was paying attention to 
another woman, committed suicide by cutting her throat; upon 
returning to bed on that occasion, the man found the bed be- 
spattered and wet with blood; he returned to the image of Mary 
and called for help — returning at the call of a servant, he found 
his wife restored to life. 

"Fly, O Adam and Eve, and all you their children, who have 
outraged God; fly, and take refuge in the bosom of this good 
Mother; know you not that she is our only city of refuge? The 
only hope of sinners?" 

"Says St. Thomas of Villanona, '0 Mary, we poor sinners know 
no other refuge than thee, for thou art our only hope, and on thee 
we rely for salvation." 

"Noah's Ark was a true figure of Mary." 

A sinner, on his way to commit a crime, was met by Mary, who 
had THE "INFANT" JESUS IN HER ARMS, whose wounds 
were bleeding; the sinner "burst into tears; but the divine Infant 
turned His back on him"; but Mary "began to implore her Son 
to pardon this miserable wretch. Jesus continued to show him- 
self unwilling to do so." 

"The Holy Church carefully teaches her children . . . that all 
the faithful should salute this holy Mother of God three times a 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 313 

day, at the sound of the Angelus-bell ... in all public calamities 
she invariably invites all to have recourse to the protection of this 
divine Mother, by novenas, prayers, processions, by visiting the 
churches dedicated in her honor, and her images. And this is 
what Mary desires. She wishes us always to seek her and invoke 
her aid!" 

"St. Anselm, to increase our confidence, adds that/when we have 
recourse to this divine Mother, not only may we be sure of her 
protection, but often we shall be heard more quickly, and be thus 
preserved, if we have recourse to Mary and call on her holy name, 
than we should be if we called on the name of JESUS OUR 
SAVIOUR'." 

''When Mary, the ark of the New Testament, was raised to the 
dignity of Queen of Heaven, the power of hell over men was 
weakened and dissolved." 

As to the pillar of cloud and of fire that went before the people 
of Israel, Liguori says that it "was a figure of Mary fulfilling the 
double office she constantly exercises for our good : as a cloud she 
protects us from the ardor of Divine Justice; and as fire she pro- 
tects us from devils." (So, Mary protects man from God and the 
devil!) 

"All devils, on hearing the name of Mary, filled with terror, 
leave the soul." 

"At the command of Mary, all obey, even God." 

"God has placed the whole church, not only under the patron- 
age but even under the dominion of Mary." (We will shortly have 
what appears to be evidence that at the time Liguori was telling 
what Catholics were to believe as to this, Mary must not have been 
on the job as Joseph was put in charge!) 

example 

"That Mary is an advocate full of compassion for poor sinners 
was manifested in the case of Beatrice, a Religious of the Convent 
of Fontevault," says Liguori. Now, Beatrice was portress of this 
convent, but fell in love with a young man and laying her keys 
down at the feet of an image of Mary, ran away. After spending 
fifteen years in sin at another place, where she was known as a 
bad woman, she met an agent of that convent one day, and asked 
him about Sister Beatrice; she was informed that Beatrice "was 
a holy religious," and mistress of the novices. Beatrice thought 
this worth looking into, so she set out, under disguise, for the 
convent. Arriving there, she was admitted, and the Blessed Vir- 
gin explained: that she, Mary, had assumed the appearance of 
Beatrice and carried on all her work during those fifteen years 
she was away (in sin). Beatrice re-entered the convent and took 
up her duties, and no one would have been the wiser if she hadn't 
told on herself, how the Blessed Virgin made it possible for her 
to spend fifteen years as a dissolute woman by holding her name 
and job intact! 

A fellow named Andrew died impenitent. "Mary obtained that 
he should come to life again, that he might be pardoned." 

"When the Emperor Sigsmund"(the man who guaranteed safe- 



314 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

conduct to Huss, and allowed the Council of Constance to murder 
him) "was crossing the Alps with his army, a voice was heard 
coming from a skeleton, asking for a confessor (priest) , and de- 
claring that the Mother of God, for whom he had had a tender de- 
votion when a soldier, had obtained that he should thus live until 
he had been able to make his confession; and, having done so, the 
soul departed." 

"The promise made by our Blessed Lady to Pope John XXII is 
well known. She appeared to him and ordered him to make known 
to all that on the Saturday after their death, she would deliver 
from purgatory all who wore the Carmelite scapular." 

"In a city of Aragon there was a beautiful young lady, who was 
courted by two young men. Out of jealousy they one day fought 
and both were killed. Their enraged relatives, considering the 
young lady the cause of this sad event, murdered her, cut off her 
head, and threw it into a well." Several days later God directed 
St. Dominic to pass there, who called on her to come forth. "In 
an instant the head of the murdered woman came up, and re- 
mained on the edge of the well, and entreated the saint to hear 
her confession." The woman said she had died in sin, but on ac- 
count of the rosary devotion, Mary had kept her alive. The head 
remained alive on the well two days, then the soul departed for 
purgatory. 

Liguori also tells of a robber whose head was cut off by enemies 
and thrown into the ditch. This head called on Mary for the grace 
to go to confession. A priest after hearing his confession, asked 
"what devotion he practiced. The robber replied that all he had 
done was to fast once a week in honor of the Blessed Virgin." 

"Blessed Francis Patrize, who had the greatest devotion to the 
'Hail Mary/ used to recite five hundred a day. . . . He died a 
saint. After forty years a beautiful lily grew out of his mouth, 
and on each of the leaves was written the 'Hail Mary' in letters 
of gold." 

A REMARKABLE EXAMPLE 

"A devout servant of Mary went one day, without telling her 
husband, to visit a church of Our Blessed Lady, and was pre- 
vented by a great storm from returning. She was greatly alarmed 
lest her husband be angry; she, however, recommended herself 
to Mary and returned home, where she found her husband very 
kind to her, and in quite a good humor. By her inquiries she dis- 
covered that the NIGHT BEFORE the divine Mother HAD 
TAKEN HER FORM and attended to ALL THE DUTIES OF 
THE HOUSEHOLD as a servant." (And the pope says he has 
the right to have all our children put under priests and nuns to 
be educated, and trained in "RELIGION," and our public schools 
are "Godless" because the Glories of Mary are not taught therein 
as an article of faith!) 

A man was repeating prayers to Mary, when he fell into the 
River Seine and was drowned. Having died in mortal sin, devils 
appeared to take him to hell ; but Mary came upon the scene about 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 315 

that time, rebuked the devils, restored the man to life, who con- 
tinued to praise her. 

In the year 1228, a priest was saying mass in honor of the Vir- 
gin Mary, when some Albigensian heretics fell upon him and cut 
out his tongue; after a season ''Mary appeared to him with a 
tongue in her hand . . . and with her own hands put the tongue 
in his mouth." 

"God will not save us without the intercession of Mary." 

"As a child cannot live without a nurse to suckle it, so no one 
can be saved without the protection of Mary." 

"From the moment in which this Virgin conceived the Divine 
Word in her womb, she acquired a special jurisdiction, so to say, 
over all the gifts of the Holy Ghost; so that no creature has since 
received any grace from God, otherwise than by the hands of 
Mary." 

"She is our mediatress, through whose hands God has decreed 
that all that He gives to men should pass. . . Our Salvation is in 
her hands." 

There are hundreds and hundreds of pages in these two volumes 
by Liguori extolling the Virgin Mary, which were first issued by 
him in 1750. He examined all accounts and writings of the "holy 
fathers" before his day; and all the marvelous works and mani- 
festations of Mary, it seems to me, were, strange to say, confined 
to the period when popery was supreme — the Rosary and Scapu- 
lar being devotions to Mary, and the product of the Stygian era 
in the world's history known as the "Dark Ages" ! 

Remember, that what the Apostle Paul or John is to Protes- 
tantism, Liguori is to Roman Catholicism: now, in their devo- 
tions Romanists must offer one degree of worship to the saints 
called Dulia; to Mary another degree, called Hyperdulia; to God 
or the pancake another, Latria. If, in their prayers, they should 
cross the imaginary line separating the three degrees of worship, 
and should offer to the saint that due Mary, idolatry has been 
committed; also, if in offering to Mary the worship due God or 
the "Sacred Host," they likewise sin! How may one know — espe- 
cially the very illiterate, of which the papacy has its full share — 
when the imaginary line has been crossed? Impossible! 

Using "The Glories of Mary" as illustrative : we can see in part 
why Romanism hurls anathema against a Romanist if he reads 
any book on religious or moral subjects that has not been o. k.'d 
by a priest ; and also where the Roman church is leading humanity 
when a priest swears to interpret Holy Scripture only in accord- 
ance with the unanimous teaching of the "fathers." 

As the pope claims jurisdiction over all the BAPTIZED in the 
world, and has the right under his law to force the BAPTIZED 
to take Mary as their Mediatress, NO ONE CAN FAIL TO 
OPPOSE or PROTEST against popery, without such being an 
admission of the pope's jurisdiction— for in this matter "silence 



316 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

gives consent"; and what is here stated as true in regard to the 
spiritual side of the question is also true as to the moral and politi- 
cal sides of it: for he who submits to the spiritual government 
of the pope must and will submit to his DIRECTIVE and LEG- 
ISLATIVE authority, which invades the political realm, over 
which the pope has a world-jurisdiction, because of his office as 
God's Superintendent. 

The Bible says, "and they shall call His name JESUS: for He 
shall save His people from their sins." Matt. i:21. ("Jesus" means 
"Savior.") 

"For there is none other name under heaven given among men 
whereby we must be saved." Acts iv:12. 

"Jesus saith unto him, I AM THE WAY, the truth, and the 
life; NO man cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." John xiv:6. 

"And I will pray the Father, and HE shall give YOU another 
Comforter, that He may abide with you FOREVER." John xiv:16. 

"But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father 
will send in MY NAME, He shall teach you all things, and bring 
ALL things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto 
you." John xiv:26. 

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that entereth not by the 
DOOR into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, IS A 
THIEF AND A ROBBER." John x:l. 

"I AM THE DOOR: by ME if any man enter in, he SHALL 
be saved, and shall go in and out and find pasture." John x:9. 

"Thou shalt worship THE LORD THY GOD, and Him only 
shalt thou serve." Matt. iv:10. 

Just as the pope's church reverses the Bible, substituting the 
pope and Mary for God and Christ and the Holy Spirit, so it re- 
verses, in its laws, every principle of the American scheme of gov- 
ernment and would place every institution erected by free people 
under the domination of Mary- worshipers ; and because a disease 
has not become an epidemic is no reason why any one should not 
oppose it; do not wait until it has gained such headway as to 
make the fight uncertain in its outcome; IF THE CHURCH IN 
ITS fundamental law demands the right to reverse the present 
order and its laws show that IT WOULD and WILL when it gets 
in position to do so, shall we sit in idleness, with the facts before 
us, and wait until it has become powerful enough to make resist- 
ance uncertain or useless? IF ROMANISM IS RIGHT, then we 
should all embrace it; if it is WRONG, it must be opposed, and 
prevented from being "infused, as it were, into all the veins of 
the State," as Leo says. 

In a preceding paragraph, we have shown where Liguori 
teaches, and the pope's church sanctioned it, that "God has placed 
the whole church, not only under the patronage, but even under 
the dominion of Mary": In the second volume of "Glories of 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 317 

Mary" I find a decree which seems to discredit Mary (but a little 
thing like that never bothers a Romanist), which decree was 
issued by Pope Pius IX, in 1870, in which JOSEPH is made the 
Patron of the Catholic Church. When we recall the promise that 
the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church of God, 
and that the pope says he is in charge of that church, and after 
reading the foregoing showing how all powerful Mary is over the 
forces of heaven, earth and hell, and that at that time — 1870 — 
Italy was throwing off "the sweet yoke" of the papal church, the 
language of the decree is very impressive in which its protection 
is transferred from Mary to Joseph, as follows : 

"Now, in these extremely sad times, as the church herself, at- 
tacked on all sides by her enemies, is weighed down by evils so 
great that wicked men are thinking they see that hell is finally 
prevailing against her, the Venerable Prelates of the whole Cath- 
olic world have addressed to the Sovereign Pontiff their prayers 
and that of the faithful confided to their care, asking that he 
might deign to make St. Joseph the Patron of the Catholic 
Church. . . . Moved by the deplorable state of things after the 
recent events, wished to fulfill the desires of the Venerable Prel- 
ates by placing himself and all the faithful under the very power- 
ful protection of the Holy Patriarch, St. Joseph, and he solemnly 
decreed him to be the Patron of the Catholic Church." 

Eighteen hundred and seventy years after Jesus made the 
promise to be with His Church, and after the popes had set Mary 
in the place of Christ, we find the pope's church getting in trouble 
with the Kingdom of Italy, in the matter of separating Church 
and State, and the pope is "moved by these deplorable things" to 
dethrone Mary and enthrone Joseph, as the Patron of the Church; 
that is to say, that, although he, the pope, holds the place of God 
Almighty in the world, he needed help, and after giving Mary a 
try-out for almost seventeen hundred years — my! how slow the 
popes are to recognize what all the worlds knows for hundreds of 
years ! — he places the church under the protection of Mary's hus- 
band, Joseph ! 

Let us now quote Liguori, as he sings the praise of Joseph: 
"For me, it is enough to state what St. Teresa says . . .: 'The 
Lord gives us to understand that, as He wished to be subject to 
St. Joseph on earth, so in heaven He does whatever the saint 
asks'." That "Gerson says that, with Jesus Christ, the prayers 
of St. Joseph have in a certain manner the force of a com- 
mand." (!) 

"The Venerable Sister Pudentiana Zagnoni, who was greatly 
devoted to St. Joseph, had at death the happiness of seeing the 
saint approach her bed WITH JESUS IN HIS ARMS." (Jesus 
ever remains as a-babe-in-arms in the papal system of religion ! ) 

Joseph "has the special privilege of delivering dying persons 
from the snares of the devil." 



318 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

From the foregoing citations from Liguori, we may readily 
understand why the papal church strives to keep the Bible out of 
the hands of all people; why Rome has made us throw it out of the 
public schools, although the children of Romanists are sent to 
papal schools. If the people would permit teaching the papal 
Catechism and worship of Mary, Joseph, etc., they would let their 
children attend, but for the present this is not permitted, so she 
sets up her own schools; and I most respectfully contend that 
those who belong to the Roman church can not be true to the 
public schools and should not be permitted to teach therein. Cer- 
tainly, non-Catholics do not want their children brought up under 
the influence of ancient paganism where they learn to depend 
upon a creature rather than the Creator for guidance in life. 

That the pope is the Anti-Christ seems proven by many facts; 
but when we realize every law in the papal code is aimed, not at 
Mohammedanism, Confucianism, Buddhism, or other pagans, 
but at those who have been baptized — holding that the pope is 
bishop not only of the Roman Catholic church, but of the Church 
Universal of God, and hence all the baptized are "separated 
brethren" who are to be compelled to return to the papal fold, 
using coercive measures if necessary, even to death, no doubt can 
remain as to whether the pope is the Vice-Gerent of Christ, or the 
Anti-Christ. 

The late Priest Phelan, of St. Louis, once said that the Roman 
church would give no bond for its good behavior. Sure not. It 
can't. Its laws and doctrines as outlined in these pages show 
that it is impossible for the pope's church to give such bond — it 
guarantees but one thing, namely: to put such laws in force when 
it becomes possible — after getting intrenched in politics and as 
trainers of youth in our schools for a sufficient length of time. 

American Protestants are spending millions of dollars every 
year to send the Gospel to the heathen of the world — and I assist 
in this — while the cancer of Romanism is being fastened into the 
system of our national life; the "sap" of Romanism is being in- 
fused into every vein of the State : how many converts to Chris- 
tianity do the Protestants win in foreign lands each year? Rome 
claims to be winning about 500,000 in America annually — adults, 
at that! How has this been made possible? Because the Protes- 
tant preachers have failed to protest — have failed to teach the 
principles of Protestantism and Romanism, and in many cases, 
the sons and daughters of Protestants are won from the so-called 
Protestant ranks who have been taught to look upon Romanism 
as merely another Christian church. If Protestant Christianity 
is good enough to send to heathen lands, surely it is good enough 
to be taught at home in our churches and to our fellow-citizens; 
it is all right to send the Gospel to heathen lands, but those who 
take part in this, and refuse to evangelize their own land, but 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 319 

permit their own flesh and blood to grow up in ignorance of papal- 
ism to become adherents of that system, to worship Mary and 
Joseph, et al. t at the order of a foreign politico-ecclesiastical mon- 
arch, mock God, and are not the friends of American civilization ! 
They by their silence, bow to the pope's claim of being their 
bishop ! 

The next charge is: 

"4th, attended by a penalty (even capital)." If this is true, 
there was no law to force him to assume it; if he does, he is exer- 
cising his own free will, which carries with it the right at any 
time to say ''Halt!" to anybody who transgresses what his con- 
science tells him is wrong, and he could arrest proceedings at that 
point. 

"5th, considered, by Masons, as paramount to the obligations 
of the law of the land." 

There are, according to Akin, Twenty-five Unchangeable Land- 
marks of Freemasonry; the 22d reads: "That a Book of the Law 
of God must constitute an indispensable part of the furniture of 
every Loge." Without the Book, there is no Masonic Lodge: one 
accepting the Bible as his guide as taught by Masonry, can not 
subscribe to or acquiesce in an oath that is paramount to the laws 
of the land and his obligation of obedience to such laws, from the 
obvious reason that the laws of the land, especially in non- 
Catholic countries, are based upon the Word of God; it would in 
that matter be just as logical to say one is guilty of drowning a 
fish by removing it from a fountain and placing it in the bound- 
less ocean. 

It is a matter worthy of note that Mr. Farrell has quoted five 
charges against Masons, which were made and promulgated by a 
papal church council, but he does not quote a single word from 
Masonic Law supporting these priests hundred of years ago, be- 
cause they do not exist in fact (an open Bible frightens popery, 
which no doubt calls for its legislation against members joining 
the Masonic order), but we have sufficient evidence, from papal 
laws, to show what Romanism teaches as to the fifth charge 
against Masonry. 

(3) That a Mason will not affirm or deny a charge against the 
order is but applying the rule of common sense, recognized long 
ago by the Arabs, who pithily paraphrased the rule by saying: 
"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool; 
shun him." One who knows nothing of Masonry and can not cite 
a single law showing it to be of evil intent, what's the use of 
entering into an argument with him? But I venture to assert 
no intelligent Catholic will say the Roman church has no authori- 
tative literature counseling disobedience to the laws of the land. 

(4) Critical analysis of evidence, and comparison of logical 



320 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

deductions is not "incrimination and recrimination" — it's the ex- 
ercise of a healthy mind and free conscience. 

"Do you not think good citizens ...'?" What makes one a 
"good citizen," in a non-Catholic community, as shown herein by 
the many citations from papal and Masonic law, I will leave the 
reader to determine. 

(5) The pope, German and Austrian divine-right rulers made 
"Pleas for a Peace," too; but as long as they keep their men 
mobilized on the firing line, their pleas will fall on deaf ears : as 
long as there remains an indication that the Catholics in America 
are subject to the decrees of an Italian potentate, their pleas will 
receive little consideration. 

Now for a distinctive comparison of the moral code of Free- 
masonry and Romanism, as I find them: 

In the code of the Grand Lodge of Georgia, under caption 
"Trials," according to Akin, "The following are Masonic offenses 
subjecting the offender to Masonic discipline: 1. Violations of 
the moral law. 2. Violations of the laws of Masonry. 3. VIO- 
LATIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE LAND involving moral 
turpitude." 

Under sub-head, par. 4, the general law is cited as illustrative : 
"Mason's daughter's want of chastity does not prevent Mason's 
intercourse with her from being Masonic offense, he knowing her 
to be a Mason's daughter," while the "writings of the holy 
fathers" teach that it is better for priests to go wrong with a 
hundred different women than to marry one. 

"Saint" Liguori asks if a woman, accused of adultery, which 
she has really committed, may deny it under oath, and answers: 
"Yes; provided she has been to confess and received the absolu- 
tion, for then the sin has been pardoned, and has really ceased to 
exist."— Card. Disc. 19, V. 54. 

Which system teaches the purest morality; which code of 
morality offers the greatest protection to society by throwing 
every safeguard around womanhood — Roman Catholicism, or 
Freemasonry? Under which influence would you prefer your wife 
or daughter to live, that of Romanism, or Freemasonry? 

The papal church persits in classing Masonry as a "sect" — a 
a religion : suppose the order should proclaim to the world that it 
has decided to be known hereafter as a religion, with the presid- 
ing officer of the lodges as priests and the Grand Masters as 
bishops, and the Grand Commander of the highest degree as 
pope; suppose then that this great organization should promul- 
gate the doctrine that if a Mason should commit a crime — say, for 
instance, kill a woman, as was done by a Romanist a few months 
ago in New York who was, it is alleged, secreted by a priest who 
assisted him to escape to Italy — and if it was made known to the 
Master of a lodge, he has the right to swear that he knows noth- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 321 

ing about it, every Protestant preacher and newspaper editor in 
America would tear their shirt-tails off in their zeal to denounce 
the Masonic "religion," YET, and YET ! all except a few of them 
are as silent as the grave while the pope teaches : 

Question "28. May a priest in a court of justice make known 
what he has learned in the confessional?" 

Answer: "No; and if he is questioned, he ought to declare to 
the judge, WITH AN OATH IF THAT BE NECESSARY, that 
he knows nothing of the subject in question," p. 447, "Manual of 
Christian Doctrine." 

We have elsewhere observed that the pope teaches his subjects 
to resort to mental reservation and equivocation, while his priests 
are to swear outright to a lie. As a natural sequence to this doc- 
trine, if papists are to be untruthful and conceal a crime, IT IS 
JUST AS REASONABLE TO SAY THE CRIMINAL MUST 
BE CONCEALED; and "like priest, like people": if the priest 
can swear to a lie, how shall we know that the layman does not 
emulate his priest? If one will conceal tenets which are criminal 
according to the Constitution of the United States, as McCreary 
and the Laymen's Association have done, is it unreasonable to 
presume they will, if occasion demands, protect a criminal? 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 28, 1917. 
Dear Sir: Did you ever hear of Cardinal Jacobatius? Well, he 
is an authority on "Conscience." His works are among the famous 
"Labbe Collection," of which you may or may not have heard, but 
which is none the less famous. 

(1) Now, in the fourth book of that collection, at page 241, 
Jacobtius, writing of the pope and conscience, says : "If it were 
doubtful whether a precept of the pope be a sin or not, we must 
determine thus: that if he to whom the precept is addressed has 
a conscientious sense that the precept is a sin, first it is his duty 
to put off the sense ; but, if he can not, in that case it is his duty 
to follow his own private conscience." 

(2) Does not that cut the knot and slip your last hold, and give 
a rule of action that though preserving order and law leaves the 
conscience free as God made it? If you ever saw a rule of human 
conduct more apt to cultivate a conscience in mankind while ex- 
tending the utmost rational liberty to the individual as a last 
resort, I shall be forever indebted to you for giving it to me. 

(3) Where now, are all the Pyrotechnics about the liberty of 
conscience, freedom of the soul and all that, as being rights that 
the Catholic church denies to her children? In the light of this 
clear teaching of Catholic theology you must see that they are 
free, as completely free as anyone with a will to do right can 
wish to be. 

(4) You object that Catholics are "like children"; but there is 
good authority for saying that "Of such are the Kingdom of 
Heaven," and unless we are like unto them we shall hardly enter 
th ere. Very truly, j. j. Farrell, Mgr. 



322 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

comment 
(1) I thought we had exhausted this subject, but it seems not. 
Mr. Farrell cites another of the "holy fathers" who is a little 
different from the others; he is sure "Jacobatius" or "Jacobtius" 
will set me right. Now, I will admit that a cardinal theologian 
who has prepared a "famous" collection is entitled to some con- 
sideration; but as far as my investigation has extended, Jacob.... 
is not as "famous" as Loyola, the founder of the "famous" Jesuit 
society, which is the controlling factor to-day in the Roman 
church; therefore, I will put him up to answer the arguments of 
Jacob-a-tius, and back him with a pope or two, who will help me 
retain my "last hold." 

(But first let me say that I think John Wesley has heard of the 
"L'Abbe" collection!) 

Says Loyola : "No constitution, declaration or any order of liv- 
ing can involve an obligation to commit sin, mortal or venial, 
unless the Superior commands it in the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, or in virtue of holy obedience." — Jesuit Const., Part VI, 
chap. V, sec. 31. Nicolini, p. 34. Loyola further teaches : "If it 
seems to me that the Superior has ordered me to do something 
against my conscience, or in which there appears to be something 
sinful, if he is of contrary opinion, and I have no certainty, I 
should rely upon him. ... I must no longer belong to myself, 
but to my Creator, and those who govern in His name, and in 
whose hands I should be as soft wax, whatsoever he chooses to 
require of me." Further he says : "He must regard the Superior 
as Christ the Lord, and must strive to acquire perfect resignation 
and denial of his own will and judgment, in all things conforming 
his will and judgment to that which the Superior wills and 
judges." Part III, chap. X, sec. 5, Const. Jesuits. 

Bartoli, the Jesuit historian, writing in defense of Jesuitism, 
in Vol. II, p. 93, expresses one of the Jesuit vows thus: "I should 
regard myself as a dead body, without will or intelligence, as a 
little crucifix which is turned about unhesitatingly at the will of 
him who holds it, as a staff in the hands of an old man, who uses 
it as he requires it, and as it suits him best." 

Now, Loyola has been made a "saint" by popery because of his 
work, while Cardinal Jacobtius is yet a cardinal! 

In Taunton's Canon Law, under the head of "Condemned 
Propositions," the 20th reads : "Laxa. A proposition is 'lax' when 
it too much FAVORS freedom of conscience." 

In his famous Syllabus of 1864, Pope Pius IX condemned the 
following proposition: "Every man is free to embrace and profess 
the religion which his reason tells him is true." — Prop. 15. He 
also condemned as error the proposition that "The church has not 
the power of inflicting punishment, nor any temporal power, direct 
or indirect. — Prop. 24 (now incorporated in Canon Law). 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 323 

Leo XIII is listed in Deharbe's Catechism as "Leo XIII, glori- 
osamente regnante"; in his Encyclical on Human Liberty, June 
20, 1888, he says: "Another liberty is widely advocated, namely, 
liberty of conscience. ... It is sufficiently refuted by the argu- 
ments already adduced." 

Hear Leo further: "But the supreme teacher in the church is 
the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together 
with a perfect accord in one faith, complete submission and obedi- 
ence of WILL to the church and to the Roman Pontiff AS TO 
GOD HIMSELF. This obedience should, however, be PERFECT, 
because it is enjoined by faith itself, and has this in common with 
faith, that it cannot be given in shreds; — nay, were it not AB- 
SOLUTE and perfect, it might wear the name of obedience, but 
its essence would disappear. Christian usage attaches such value 
to this perfection of obedience that it has been, and will ever be, 
accounted the distinguishing mark by which we are able to recog- 
nize Catholics. . . . What we are bound to believe, and what we 
are obliged to do, are laid down ... by the Supreme Pontiff," 
pp. 193-4, Great Encyc. Lets. (If Farrell uses holy water, wears 
a scapular, or counts his beads, it is in obedience to the will of the 
pope.) 

Leo seems to have been a close student and admirer of Loyola. 
There are no higher authorities in the Roman institution than 
these two; they both make it a condition precedent to being one 
of the "children" to bury their will and judgment in that of the 
superior. An individual, private will and judgment result only 
from the existence of a free conscience. "Conscience," to repeat, 
means self-knowledg of a fact, from which self-knowledge we use 
private judgment to determine if a proposition be good or bad, 
and that calls for the display of an independent will, by which 
we "choose" to accept the good or the bad; therefore, according 
to these the greatest of all Catholic authorities, a free conscience 
has as much chance to exist under popery as a lighted match 
dropped in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. 

(2) "Does not that cut the knot and slip your last hold?" asks 
Mr. Farrell; no, not q-u-i-t-e; and if I felt my hold slipping, I 
would get a new purchase from Leo here : "Whatever the Roman 
Pontiffs have hitherto taught, or shall hereafter teach, must be 
held with a firm grasp of mind." This one sentence, based as it is 
on papal LAW, completely chokes the life out of a free conscience. 

If I found my hold slipping, I would call Pope Gregory to my 
assistance, who would say (Encyclical, August 15, 1832) : "If the 
Holy Catholic church so requires, let us sacrifice our own opin- 
ions, our knowledge, our INTELLIGENCE and the most sublime 
attainments of the human understanding." What becomes of the 
cardinal? First, his doctrine is condemned by his superior as 
''lax," and then completely abolished by the law of his church ! 



324 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Mr. Farrell ought to acknowledge he can not defend Romanism. 
That's why the pope forbids the "faithful" to debate with Protes- 
tants. 

In this paragraph he asks : "Does not that leave the conscience 
free as God made it?" 

What is "Conscience"? Answered in a word, it is "KNOWL- 
EDGE." One's knowledge, then, consists of what he has learned: 
we turn to the Canon Law on Censorship of Books and read as 
follows : 

"9. The books that are bound to be submitted to ecclesiastical 
censure are: (1) Books on the Scripture; (2) Sacred theology; 
(3) Ecclesiastical history; (4) Canon law; (5) Natural theology; 
(6) Ethics; (7) And all writings treating of religious or moral 
subjects," so we see that if a Catholic desires knowledge on any 
one of these all-important questions concerning the Present and 
Future, HE MUST SECURE IT FROM THE POPE, through 
his priests ; therefore, what he learns is only what the pope wills 
for him to know, and has no conscience "free as God made it," but 
fettered as the pope bound it with LAW. 

Referring especially to Loyola's teaching, but in general to the 
principle, R. W. Thompson says : "The human mind is not fertile 
enough in invention to discover a lower depth of humiliation than 
this — a more complete surrender of all the ennobling qualities 
and instincts of manhood." 

(3) The citation from the Law as to censorship of books could 
be repeated here, quoting from the Law decreed by Leo XIII, but 
as Taunton evidently copied that, I offer it as answering this para- 
graph. 

(4) Christ said: "Suffer little children to come unto Me, for of 
such is the Kingdom of Heaven," and "except ye become as one 
of these (little children) ye can not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." 
Any well-read person knows that He is teaching that one must 
become as pure, faithful, true, loving, and HARMLESS TO 
OTHERS, as a little child to enter the kingdom, but not to remain 
so intellectually any more than physically, and to be as free in 
conscience as in body, which is corroborated by Paul, who said: 
"When I was a child, I thought as a child ; when I became a man, 
I put away childish things," and desired to become "a perfect 
man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," 
and nowhere in the whole of God's universe, except in the papal 
church, can a warrant be found to keep the human mind and con- 
science and intellect on the plane of a little child, to be for all time 
fed as it were from its mother's breast, or by a spoon at the hands 
of another, while the Theology of Dens, Liguori, etc., crowd their 
minds with more vileness than one would learn otherwise during 
his whole natural life, and to keep their minds occupied give them 
saint-images to play with, shinbones to rattle, holy-water sooth- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 325 

ing syrup to frighten away evil spirits, candles to keep them from 
being afraid of the dark, quenching their spiritual hunger by 
feeding them on the body of Christ, and scaring them into perfect 
quietness by holding before their vision the torments of purga- 
tory, while robbing them of their "pennies" to get them out after 
they get in — but not sure. Christ also said: "Be ye as harmless 
as doves, BUT wise as serpents." Rome may be as wise as the 
serpent — but, is she as harmless as a dove? 

If Romanists were satisfied to remain as little children, to be 
fed on papal dogma and directed by papal decrees, and also like 
little children and did not attempt to interfere with those who do 
not care to be fed out of the same spoon, we could all go our re- 
spective ways rejoicing; but their "conscience" does not permit 
the display of this childish characteristic; in conscience they are 
taught to pray to saints with one degree of veneration, to offer 
another degree of worship to Mary, and a third degree to the 
"Host" or pancake, and eat Him; and because others refuse, the 
SAME AUTHORITY teaches that the church has the right to 
remove them from the earth by death, when it becomes expedient. 

In Taunton's Canon Law, cap. "Coercive Powers," it is taught: 
"What may be done lawfully under certain circumstances would 
be most unwise under conditions totally different." 

That is not PRINCIPLE arising from a free conscience, but 
EXPEDIENCY: and an institution that is governed fundamen- 
tally by "expediency" instead of principle, can never make peace 
with an enlightened people; it is a constant menace to the peace 
of the world, and particular States, and is a challenge — for like a 
tiger, it but awaits the opportunity to display its true nature, 
which has marked the pathway of man with blood for hundreds 
and hundreds of years. 

The Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, through its 
Manager, Mr. Farrell, recognized that Conscience plays an im- 
portant part in worthy American citizenship (for those who ex- 
ercise the right to vote become a menace to a democracy where 
they do not express their own conscience at the polls), and has 
devoted considerable space in the effort to establish the fact that 
Catholics possess this essential of good citizenship. 

In concluding the discussion of this subject, I will sum up as 
concisely as possible: 

Referring to the letter of November 25, 1917, Mr. Farrell 
quotes Cardinal Newman, who cites Cardinal Gousset's Moral 
Theology, saying: "The divine law is the supreme rule of our 
actions, our thoughts, words, desires, all that man is, and this 
law is the rule of our conduct by means of our conscience ; hence, 
it is never lawful to go against our conscience." 

I presume "the divine law" means the Word of God — the Holy 
Bible; evidently it would not help his case to say it means some- 



326 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

thing the pope has said; now we turn to the official code of the 
church of Rome on the subject of "General Decrees Concerning 
the Prohibition and Censorship of Books/' and in Chapter III, 
we read : 

"7. As it has been clearly shown by experience that, if the Holy 
Bible in the vernacular is generally permitted without distinction, 
more harm than utility is thereby caused, owing to human temer- 
ity: all versions in the vernacular" (that means, in the language 
you speak), "even by Catholics, ARE ALTOGETHER PRO- 
HIBITED, UNLESS APPROVED BY THE HOLY SEE, or 
published under vigilant care of the bishops, WITH ANNOTA- 
TIONS TAKEN FROM THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH 
AND LEARNED CATHOLIC WRITERS." 

This decree is as binding upon Catholics as the decree of 
Priestly Celibacy; it's as binding upon them as the decree requir- 
ing a priest's presence at a marriage; all Apostolic Constitutions 
bind a Catholic in conscience — and this is from that of Pope Leo 
XIII, "Officiorum ac Munerum, Jan. 25, 1897." 

Let us suppose there is a Catholic who desires to have "a con- 
science void of offense toward God and man" and turns to "the 
divine law" to ascertain what it requires ; he goes to a book store 
and calls for a copy of "the divine law"; before it is wrapped, a 
priest standing there requests to see it; he turns to the fly-leaf 
and fails to discover the papal mark of censorship — it's a non- 
Catholic Bible, and he promptly informs the purchasing Catholic 
that he can not possess or read that book. Being asked why, the 
priest replies: "It has not been 'approved by the Holy See, or 
published under vigilant care of the bishops, with annotations 
taken from the Fathers of the Church and learned Catholic 
writers,' and because the Holy Father has decreed: '8. All ver- 
sions of the Holy Bible, in any vernacular language, made by 
non-Catholics, are prohibited,' therefore, as a good and faithful 
child of the church you can not read it"; to perfect himself, he 
attempts to buy any of "those books which treat of Holy Scrip- 
ture, sacred theology, ecclesiastical history, canon law, natural 
theology, ethics, and other religious or moral subjects of this 
character; and in general writings especially concerned with re- 
ligion and morality," and the priest says to him, "You are trans- 
gressing the 'General Decrees' of the 'holy father,' and he has 
said, 'If any one shall so presume, let him know that he will incur 
the wrath of Almighty God, and of the blessed Apostles Peter 
and Paul'!" (49th Decree.) 

This is the crucial moment with the Catholic : If he buys the 
books HE CEASES TO BE A CATHOLIC (or soon will) ; if he 
lays them down at the behest of the priest, he thereby acknowl- 
edges the sovereignty of the pope over, and the director of, his 
conscience. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 327 

Go into any Roman Catholic home — if you find there any book 
on the above list at all, it will have the papal censor's imprima- 
tur; look at the mast-head of any Roman Catholic religious pub- 
lication, it must bear the mark of Rome's permission! 

I have endeavored to follow Mr. Farrell and his citations closely 
on the subject of conscience; it is really the most important ques- 
tion that has arisen in all these discussions, because in its last 
analysis it involves questions that are vital to this Republic, as 
the following will demonstrate: 

The Fourteenth of the "General Decrees" reads as follows, in 
part: 

"14. Those books, moreover, are prohibited which . . . treat of 
Freemasonry, or other societies of the kind, teaching them to be 
useful, and not injurious to the Church and to Society; AND 
THOSE WHICH DEFEND ERRORS PROSCRIBED BY THE 
HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE." 

One of the "opinions" branded as false by Pope Pius IX in his 
Syllabus of Errors, quoted in the Great Encyclical Letters of 
Pope Leo XIII, and published by Benziger Bros., New York, 
Printers to the Holy See, reads as follows : 

"Prop. lv. The Church must be separated from the State, and 
the State from the Church." (If this is a "false" opinion, then, 
obviously, the opposite must be true, i. e., that the State must be 
united to the church.) 

The whole scheme of American Civilization is based upon keep- 
ing the Church and State forever separate; it is a fundamental 
principle incorporated in the supreme law of the land — the Con- 
stitution of the United States — and in the laws of every State in 
the Union. 

Under these State and National laws, "Freemasonry, or socie- 
ties of the kind," are lawful, as "not injurious to . . . Society," 
but Catholics are forbidden to read such books, and are obedient; 
and EVERY TEXT-BOOK IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF 
THE LAND, which in any manner teach that "the Church must 
be separated from the State, and the State from the Church," 
"defend errors proscribed by the Holy Apostolic See," and Cath- 
olics are forbidden to possess or read them. "OBEDIENCE of 
WILL" to the pope, says Leo, "has this in common with FAITH, 
that it can not be given in shreds" and "is the distinguishing 
mark by which we are able to recognize Catholics," hence, the 
parochial school! 

"St." Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelic Doctor" of the whole 
church of Rome, teaches : "Human law is law only by virtue of its 
accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it 
flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right 
reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, 



328 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

but rather a species of violence." There are over 20,000 Roman 
Catholic priests in America who studied this theology of Aquinas ; 
there are some sixteen or seventeen million members under them ; 
do these Catholics give "internal" or "external" assent to this 
doctrine of Aquinas, that the law of the land is a "species of vio- 
lence"? If they do, they are unworthy of the rights of citizen- 
ship ; if they give external or internal assent to the LAW of Pius 
IX, and believe it is wrong to separate Church and State, they are 
unworthy of citizenship. And if they remain in that "church" 
they endorse it. 

To which principle are they true? Measure them by the yard- 
stick used by Leo XIII: "Obedience . . . Faith . . . can not be 
given in shreds"; measure them by the yard-stick of Christ: "No 
man can serve two masters," he will "hate the one and cling to 
the other"; to which are Romanists clinging? 

Leo said, "We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty," 
and that "if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with 
divine law ... to resist becomes a positive duty; to obey, a 
crime," and for a Catholic to ascertain whether or not such con- 
flict exists, he must appeal to the pope through the priest; being 
a creature of the pope, the priest will teach as the pope directs; 
not having a free conscience, the true Catholic will accept what 
his superior, the priest, tells him the pope declares is "the divine 
law," AND AS LONG AS HE REMAINS A CATHOLIC, HE 
WILL BE GOVERNED THEREBY. 

"The divine law" and "the eternal law," referred to by Gousset 
and Aquinas, means the Bible, and if a Catholic reads it at all, it 
must be the papal version, with notes by the fathers and learned 
theologians explaining how it must be understood — not even a 
priest can place a private interpretation on it: therefore, if the 
divine law molds the conscience of the Catholic, it has been inter- 
preted for him by the pope, and there is no "free conscience as 
God made it" in that case; while any law that does not accord 
with "the eternal law," according to Aquinas, is not law, "but a 
species of violence," and as the pope only has the right to define 
what is "the eternal law," obviously the Catholic conscience is 
dependent upon the pope in determining whether or not a law of 
the land is in harmony with "the eternal law," hence, THE POPE 
OF ROME, THROUGH THIS PRINCIPLE, REIGNS AS 
TRULY OVER MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 
IN THE UNITED STATES, AND DIRECTS THEIR ATTI- 
TUDE IN SPIRIT AND IN FACT, AS IF THEY WERE 
CITIZENS OF THE PAPAL STATES OF ITALY, or AS AB- 
SOLUTELY AS THE SWAY OF THE GERMAN KAISER 
OVER HIS SUBJECTS! 

I have read the Bible and studied it, and given some considera- 
tion to learned writers and students; but in all this I have not 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 329 

found where Christ or any of His Apostles taught a "DOUBLE 
DOCTRINE"— that is to say, they did not teach their followers 
one thing and those on the outside another totally different; that 
would be deception, and Christ did not rely upon deceit, which is 
of the devil, to make converts, or to gain TOLERANCE FOR HIS 
FOLLOWERS. 

That there is a "Double Doctrine" in the Church of Rome, no 
more satisfactory proof could be demanded than is furnished by 
Mr. Fariell's ability to cite from the works of "cardinals" to show 
that Catholics have a conscience free as God made it. If a Protes- 
tant asks the Roman church if Catholics have a free conscience, 
she answers "Yes, here is what 'cardinals' say"; she shows that 
side of hei* face to me ; but let a Catholic ask the question, and she 
says "No ! the pope has even condemned any proposition that 'too 
much favors freedom of conscience'." That's the other side of her 
face ! 

It is generally understood that in defining a dogma to be pro- 
posed to belief, the pope must have sufficient evidence from the 
Bible to warrant teaching it; or, it must be founded upon Tradi- 
tion, especailly things that were said or done by the Apostles of 
Christ and handed down by word of mouth by the fathers of that 
church; now, the Dogma of Purgatory, for example, may be con- 
sidered as illustrative of this double doctrine as applied to those 
inside of the church: there is the very slightest foundation for 
purgatory in the Bible — in fact, carefully considered, is rather a 
negation, taking the Book as its own commentary, which pre- 
cludes the dogma being establishd thereon; but how about Tra- 
dition? To be based upon that, there must be an unbroken chain 
from the Apostles to warrant it. The doctrine was proclaimed as 
an article of faith by the Councils of Florence and Trent hun- 
dreds of years after the Apostolic age, yet we have an array of 
men as learned in the Roman church as have ever been, who did 
not believe in purgatory — never heard of it as being taught by, 
and handed down as, Tradition from the Apostles: among the 
early "holy fathers" of the Roman church we find St. Irenaeus 
denies it; he lived just one hundred and forty years after the 
Apostles — about 140-202 — surely, if there was any Tradition upon 
which to base it, he would have known of it. Origen was a writer 
and teacher in the Roman church in the second century — he did 
not believe in purgatory. Tertullian, an early Latin scholar of 
the Roman church, objected to the doctrine in the second century, 
and as late as the beginning of the seventh century after the 
Apostles we find such a man as St. Augustine saying, "Such a 
belief is not incredible, BUT ITS EXISTENCE is certainly DIS- 
CUSSABLE." (Note— After adoption, "The Council of Trent 
warns preachers not to enter into curious and subtle points in 
their sermons on purgatory." — Canon Law, by Taunton.) 



330 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

So, we see that in regard to purgatory, as in the matter of free 
conscience, a Catholic could use the "writings of the fathers" 
Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, or St. Augustine to establish a fact 
when dealing with a non-Catholic, while to those on the ir.side, if 
a Catholic should believe the matter "discussable" and ask con- 
cerning it, the priest would only have to say "Credo" ! "The pope 
through his church has said so!" and to a Catholic he "knows that 
purgatory is a fact and does not have to investigate!" 

The only conclusion is, that as Divine Revelation ended with the 
Apostles, Tradition fails to disclose the Apostles held the doc- 
trine, and the Bible does not teach it, purgatory is purely of human 
origin and invention, which, like all other successful human in- 
ventions, is a wonderful source of revenue to the Italian Institu- 
tion. 

As Revelation closed with the Apostles, and as they did not in- 
stitute the use of scapulars and rosary beads, these are also 
human inventions. 

Augusta, Ga., Dec. 1, 1917. 

Dear Sir: (1) This will conclude my comments on your long 
letter, except as to the debate and as to the publication of our 
exchanges and saving the matter of the folder about which I 
wrote. 

(2) We have covered considerable ground in this discussion, 
and tried travelers, you know, are not always agreeable talkers. 
But if I have said anything throughout that you think ought to 
have been said in a different and more kindly way, then, I wish I 
had said it that way. 

(3) You have very courteously not attempted to sidetrack the 
matter on your part and this does not go unappreciated, I can 
assure you ; but now, if there is any part of your letter I have not 
covered, I shall be gald for you to call my attention to it. 

(4) I shall not say you must be satisfied about the many ques- 
tions treated, but do venture to think that you must have a better 
understanding of many if not all of them. Sufficient at least not 
to doubt that Catholics and non-Catholics, if they will try — and 
we are trying — can live together in peace. 

There are difficulties, yes ; but a wise man once said that a thou- 
sand difficulties do not make a single doubt. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

(1) In the Appendix I believe it will be made clear that the 
Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia never contemplated en- 
tering into a debate; as to joint publication, the utter disregard 
of my oft-repeated request that answers to my questions be 
supported by competent authority — that means, citing from popes 
or general councils — to show the attitude of Catholics toward 
moral, civil and political matters, and viewed in the light of the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 331 

letters exchanged as to the debate, I am satisfied we could never 
come to a satisfactory conclusion; as the folder referred to, from 
the information asked for, it appears that it has assumed a per- 
sonal aspect, and I am in no way making any phase of the ques- 
tion personal. 

(2) Perhaps we have both evinced a little spirit, at times; how- 
ever, as we have not been dealing with individuals, but principles 
of a system, no apology is craved, none offered. 

(3) All the correspondence has been faithfully copied; if there 
is any letter missing, as per the files of Mr. Farrell, no doubt it 
was the fault of the mails, not mine. Also, I have endeavored to 
treat all subjects in that plain, straight-forward manner as be- 
comes one who desires to be honest with himself and his fellow- 
man, and just as I would treat the same subjects with any other 
sect or class if they had the aspirations and ambitions as I believe 
actuates the Roman Catholic church through its HEAD. 

(4) I am sorry, and regret to have to make the admission, that 
the answers to my questions have proven a disappointment in 
general as touching matters concerning important issues. 

Mr. Farrell says that "Catholics and non-Catholics, if they will 
try — and we are trying — can live together in peace" : yes, as long 
as non-Catholics do not question the religion of Catholics, while 
the laws and doctrines shown in this book are impressed daily on 
the minds, hearts and consciences of Catholics; "we are trying": 
some months ago (I think it was the issue under date of July 7, 
1918), I saw a copy of Our Sunday Visitor, reputed to have the 
largest circulation of any Catholic publication in America; on its 
front page was a large cartoon: spanning a deep Ravine repre- 
senting Time, was a suspension-bridge, narrow, the planks un- 
securely fastened to the stays, many entirely missing, while the 
end that was supposed to have been anchored on Eternity's Shores 
did not reach there, but was suspended over the chasm, and at 
about its middle was a man supposed to represent a Protestant 
preacher; close beside this characature was another bridge, sym- 
metrical in its proportions, and of durable composition — 

"We are trying to live together in peace," says Mr. Farrell; but 
to my mind, that one cartoon epitomizes official Romanism as it is 
taught in dogma and decree of the Roman church to its followers, 
which has the official approval of the present pope, Benedict XV, 
John Bonanzo, Apostolic Delegate from the Pope to Washington, 
D. C., and H. J. Alerding, Bishop of Forth Worth, Ind. 

Benedict XV says in part: "There are two things which, among 
others, commend to us the Catholic paper, Our Sunday Visitor . . . 
the first is, the task proposed by you so to spread and explain 
Catholic doctrine that you might attach Catholics more closely 
to it. . . ." 



332 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

John Bonanzo : "The nature of your work tends to supply, in a 
popular and practical way, the religious needs of both Catholics 
and non-Catholics. . . ." 

H. J. Alerding: "Your work . . is truly an apostolic work. . ." 

With the history of popery before me, covering almost two 
thousand years; with the law of the church in my hands; with 
current, world-wide events, especially in regard to the Great War, 
the attitude of Catholics in Canada, in Ireland, in Australia, and 
many in America, to the Governments, before me; with a full 
knowledge of the un-American influence and power exerted in 
political circles to secure special favors in this country during the 
war which have a sinister bearing on the peace of the nation; 
that Masonry was originally barred from the cantonments while 
the church of Rome had access thereto through the Knights of 
Columbus (Masonry permitted to enter under restrictions later; 
Protestantism as such was barred, all ministers having to work, 
if at all, through the Y. M. C. A., which is merely a club for gen- 
eral moral work — though composed of Protestants is not Protes- 
tant neither a religion) ; when I know that the public press is 
closely scanned and censored; when I know that almost every 
picture that is thrown on the movie screen that has any sugges- 
tion of religion in it presents Catholicism as Catholic priests 
would have the people see Romanism, while other religious sug- 
gestions resemble in effect the cartoon in the Sunday Visitor; and 
when I believe Jesuitism is directing the Roman church through- 
out America and has centered all Catholics under one head in the 
Federated Societies; and when I read the teaching of the pope 
as to popular education and see that as far as practicable his 
children are obedient, I must confess I see no hope for Roman 
Catholics and non-Catholics in America to live together in that 
peace which makes for the best interest of the country, until they 
themselves show adequate proof that the laws and decrees of the 
church which stand in the way of this desired end have been 
nullified. 

I am looking facts in the face, fully comprehending my respon- 
sibility in the matter, both to Catholics and non-Catholics; I 
would be glad to say, "Come, let us reason together," but they will 
not\ I would say, "Explain this question to me fully in the light 
of what the church requires of you," but they will not; I say that 
I believe the Roman church has declared war against American 
institutions, Protestantism, fraternal orders, and to keep the 
Catholic conscience trained in the dogmas and decrees of the Dark 
Ages sets up its parochial school, which also segregates the youth 
of the land who should grow up with each other, learning together 
the lessons that will perpetuate the liberties purchased with blood 
for ail of us, all to become co-workers for the common good and 
to esteem each other as citizens of a common country, and instead 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 333 

of disabusing my mind of this opinion, subtle arguments are pre- 
sented that render the issues more opaque. Therefore, I must 
stand for what I conceive to be my duty, and leave the results to 
Him who holds the destiny of the nations in the hollow of His 
hand. 

Augusta, Ga., Dec. 3, 1917. 

Dear Sir: Regarding a Plea for Peace: 

In the instruction of General Albert Pike given to the "Intimate 
Secretary" in his "Morals and Dogma" (p. 123), is the following 
splendid paragraph : 

"Only the base and ungenerous delight in discord; it is the 
pocrest occupation of humanity to labor to make men think ill of 
each other. The duty of the Mason is to endeavor to make man 
think better of his neighbor ; to quiet instead of aggravating diffi- 
culties; to bring together those who are estranged; to keep friends 
from becoming foes and to persuade foes to become friends." 

I commend this to you as setting forth the spirit and purpose 
of the Catholic Laymen's Association. Will you endorse and stand 
by it? 

I reach you my hand. 

Very truly, 
JJF/LH J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

COMMENT 

Has Mr. Farrell a proscribed book in his possession? Did he 
secure permission from the bishop? If not, he has violated a de- 
cree of the church, and is not a true Catholic ; it's a "book which 
treats of Freemasonry." 

I believe that paragraph portrays Freemasonry; and I "believe 
if the individual Catholic was left to himself, as a free American 
citizen, to shape his conduct without regard to the influence of a 
pope in Europe, peace and harmony would prevail; but LAYMEN 
can not speak for the church of Rome ; that is the prerogative of 
the priest, who speaks as he is instructed by his bishop, the bishop 
getting his orders from the pope; and as to Freemasonry, that 
has been discussed. Now, we read a Roman Catholic paper and 
learn what priests teach Catholics : "Why don't somebody in Con- 
gress or Legislature introduce and pass bills to investigate and 
destroy these secret Masonic lodges and societies? After these 
Masonic societies get through arousing prejudice and bitterness 
against Catholic citizens and their church and religion, they will 
direct their efforts against the Government of the United States. 
That has been their program in Europe; it is the program fol- 
lowed in Mexico, and it will be followed here in due time." — The 
Roman Catholic Review, Baltimore, October 7, 1916. 

General Pike spoke officially as a Mason ; the priest-editor spoke 
officially as a Catholic: which comports best with what Mr. 
Farrell says the LAYMEN desire? 



334 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the bishop's oath 

In a booklet entitled "An Appeal to Fair Minds," the signature 
to its "Foreword" being "Joseph B. Frankhauser, S. J., Pastor of 
St. Joseph's Church, Macon, Ga., February, 1916," the following 
is the first information it presents, on page one: 

"This booklet is offered to the public in the hope that it will 
serve as an antidote to the slanderous attacks upon the Catholic 
Church, her priests, and her people, so recently made in lectures 
in the City Auditorium, Macon, Ga., February 2-7, 1916. 

"For the sake of those who have borne false witness against us, 
the following text from Holy Scripture is appended : 

"'A DECEITFUL WITNESS THAT UTTERETH LIES, 
THE LORD DETESTETH' (Proverbs vi:19)." 

On page 23, under the heading, "Do Not Catholic Bishops and 
Priests take an Oath to Exterminate Protestants?" this truth- 
loving, Scripture-quoting Jesuit said: 

"No. The oath taken by Bishops as found in the Roman Pon- 
tifical is as follows: 

"I, , elected to the Church of N., from this hour hence- 
forward will be obedient to Blessed Peter the Apostle, and to 
the Holy Roman Church, and to our Holy Father, Pope N., and 
to his successors canonically elected. I will assist them to retain 
and defend the Roman Papacy without detriment to my order. I 
shall take care to preserve, to defend, increase and promote the 
rights, honors, privileges and authority of the Holy Roman 
Church, of our Lord, the Pope, and of his aforesaid successors. 
I shall observe with all my strength, and shall cause to be ob- 
served by others, the rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolic de- 
crees, ordinances or dispositions, reservations, provisions and 
mandates. I shall come when called to a synod, unless prevented 
by a canonical impediment. I shall make personally the visit ad 
limina apostolorum every ten years, and I shall render to our Holy 
Father, Pope P., and to his aforesaid successors an account of my 
whole pastoral office, and of all things pertaining in any manner 
whatsoever to the state of my church, to the discipline of the 
clergy and the people, and finally to the salvation of the souls 
which are entrusted to me : and in turn I shall receive humbly the 
apostolic mandates and execute them as diligently as possible. 
But if I shall be detained by legitimate impediment, I shall fulfill 
all the aforesaid things through a designated delegate having a 
special mandate for this purpose, a priest of my diocese, or 
through some other secular or regular priest of known probity 
and religion, fully informed concerning the above-named things. 
I shall not sell, nor give, nor mortgage the possessions belonging 
to my mensa, nor shall enfeoff them anew or alienate them in any 
manner, even with the consent of the chapter of my Church, with- 
out consulting the Roman Pontiff. And if through me any such 
alienation shall occur, I wish, by the very fact, to incur the pun- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 335 

ishments contained in the constitution published concerning this 
matter. 

"So help me God, and these Holy Gospels of God." 

By actual count it will be found that the 'Rev.' Frankhauser 
OMITTED almost TWO-FIFTHS of the oath and circulated it 
to prove to the Protestants of Macon that the Roman Catholic 
bishop, who directs all the "faithful" in a diocese, does not swear 
an oath against Protestants ! 

I will now quote the oath as it is in the "Pontificate Romanum," 
and invite Latin scholars to translate it for themselves. 

FORM OF THE OATH 

From "Pontificate Romanum, Summorum Pontificum. Jussu Edi- 
tum a Benedicto xiv. et Leone xiii. Pontificibus Maximis, Recog- 
nitum et Castigatum. Pars Prima. Mechliniae. H. Dessairn. 
Summi Pontificis, S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide et 
Archiepiscopatus Mechliniensis Typographies. MDCCCXCV." 
Next page contains : 

"APPROBATIO 

"Revisione diligenter peracta, omnia in hac editione reperta 
sunt apprime concordare cum Originali in Secretaria Sacrae 
Rituum Congregationis existente. In fidem, etc. 
"Ex eadem Secretaria hac die 1 Januarii 1895. 

"Pro. R. P. D. ALOISIO TRIPEPI, 
"Secretario. 



Seal S "ANTONIUS SARDI, Substitutus: 

From the next page we learn when this book was first author- 
ized: 

"Omnibus has Visuris Salutem in Domino. 
"Cum juxta Constitutionem Urbani PP. VIII de die 17 Junii 
16 U. . •" 

This Ritual was also approved in our day by Pope Leo XIII. 
The book is printed in Modern Latin, by "H. Dessain," Mechlin, 
Belgium. 

Mr. Farrell has shown that he is in possession of, or has access 
to, information not generally permitted laymen; no doubt, there- 
fore, he can read the "Pontificate Romanum"; let him refer to 
that ritual of his church and see if the following information as 
to the book is not true, and compare my transcript of the oath 
with that contained in the Pontificate, and say if it is not a true 
copy: 

Under the head of "De Consecratione Electi in Episcopum" 
Part I, p. 82, is the following: 



336 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 



"forma juramenti. 

"Ego N. Electus Ecclesiae N. ab hac hora in antea fidelis, et 
obediens ero beato Petro Apostolo, sanctaeque Romanae Ecclesiae, 
et Domino nostro, Domino N. Papae N. suisque Successoribus 
canonice intrantibus. Non ero in consilio, aut consensu, vel facto, 
ut vitam perdant, aut membrum, seu capiantur mala captione, aut 
in eos violenter manus quomodolibet ingerantur, vel injuriae ali- 
quae inferantur, quovis quaesito colore. Consilium vero, quod 
mihA credituri sunt, per se, aut Nuntios suos, seu litteras, ad eoru/m 
damnum, me sciente, nemini pandam. Papatum Romanum, et 
Regalia sancti Petri, adjutor eis ero ad retinendum, et defenden- 
dum, salvo meo ordine, contra omnem hominem. Legatum Apos- 
tolicae Sedis ineundo et redeundo honorifice tractabo, et in suis 
necessitatibus adjuvabo. Jura, honores, privilegia, et auctori- 
tatem sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae, Domini nostri Papae, et Suc- 
cessorum praedictorum, conservare, defendere, augere, et promo- 
vere curabo. Neque ero in consilio, vel facto, seu tractatu, in 
quibus contra ipsum Dominum nostrum, vel eamdem Romanam 
Ecclesiam, aliqua sinistra, vel praejudicialia personarum, juris, 
honoris, status, et potestatis eorum machinentur. Et si talia a 
quibuscumque tractari, vel procurari novero, impediam hoc pro 
posse: et quanto citius potero, significabo eidem Domino nostro 
vel alteri, per quern possit ad ipsius notitiam pervenire. Regulas 
sanctorum Patrum, decreta, ordinationes seu dispositiones, reser- 
vationes, provisiones, et mandata Apostolica, totis viribus obser- 
vabo, et faciam ab aliis observari. Haereticos, Schismaticos, et 
rebelles eidem Domino nostro, vel Successoribus praedictis, pro 
posse persequar, et impugnabo. Vocatus ad synodum, veniam, 
nisi praepeditus fuero Canonica praepeditione. Apostolorum lim- 
ina singulis trienniis personaliter per me ipsum visitabo; et 
Domino nostro, ac Successoribus praefatis, rationem reddam de 
toto meo pastorali officio, ac de rebus omnibus ad meae Ecclesiae 
statum, ad cleri et populi disciplinam, animarum denique, quae 
meae fidei traditae sunt, salutem, quovis modo pertinentibus : et 
vicissim mandata Apostolica humiliter recipiam, et quam dili- 
gentissime exsequar. Quod si legitime impedimento detentus 
fuero, praefata omnia adimplebo per certum Nuntium ad hoc 
speciale mandatum habentem, de gremio mei Capituli, aut alium 
in dignitate ecclesiastica constitutum, seu alias personatum hab- 
entem: aut, his mihi deficientibus, per dioecesanum Sacerdotem; 
et clero deficiente omnino, per aliquem alium Presbyterum saecu- 
larem, vel regularem, spectatae probitatis, et religionis, de su- 
pradictis omnibus plene instructum. De hujusmodi autem im- 
pedimento docebo per legitimas probationes ad sanctae Romanae 
Ecclesiae Cardinalem proponentem in Congregatione sacri Con- 
cilii, per supradictum Nuntium transmittendas. 

"Possessiones vero ad mensam meam pertinentes non vendam, 
.nee donabo, neque impignorabo, nee de novo infeudabo, vel aliquo 
modo alienabo, etiam cum consensu Capituli Ecclesiae 'meae, in- 
consulto Romano Pontifice. Et si ad aliquam alienationem deve- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 337 

nero, poenas in quadam super hoc edita constitutione contentas, 
eo ipso incurrere volo. 

Sic me Deus adjuvet, et haec sancta Dei Evangelia." 

Practically the same oath is used in "De Benedictione Abbatis, 
Auctoritate Apostolica," Part I, p. 135. 

In conferring "De Pallio," Part I, p. 122, the above oath is ad- 
ministered. 

In "De Consecratione plurium Electorum in Episcopos," Part 
III, p. 288, the only difference to be found in the oath is in regard 
to making the personal visit to the pope : "trienniis, vel quadrien- 
niis, vel quinquenniis, vel decenniis," and: 

"Et Ego, N. Electus Ecclesiae N. juro in omnibus, et per omnia, 
ut supra, in forma juramenti jam lecta, facere, et observare pro 
Ecclesia N. mihi commissa." 

December 13, 1919. 
To Whom It May Concern: 

This is to certify that I, the undersigned, have read the above 
oath, in the original Latin, in the "Pontificale Romanum," an offi- 
cial Ritual of the Roman Catholic Church, and declare it to be 
a true transcript of the same. 

(Signed) T. W. Callaway, 
Pastor, Tabernacle Baptist Church, 

Macon, Ga. 

For the benefit of those who can not read Latin, I present the 
following 

TRANSLATION OF BISHOP'S OATH 

"I, N., Elect of the Church of N., from henceforward will be 
faithful and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the holy 
Roman Church, and to our Lord, the Lord N. Pope N., and to his 
successors canonically coming in. I will neither advise, consent, 
or do anything that may lose life or member, or that their persons 
may be seized, or hands anywise laid upon them, or any injuries 
offered to them under any pretense whatsoever. The counsel which 
they shall entrust to me withal, by themselves, their messengers, 
or letters, I will not knowingly reveal to any to their prejudice. 
I will help them to defend and keep the Roman Papacy and the 
Royalties of St. Peter ( saving my order), against all men. The 
legate of the Apostolic See, going and coming, I will honorably 
treat and help in his necessities. The rights, honors, privileges, 

and authority of the Roman Church, of our Lord, the Pope, and 
his aforesaid successors, I will endeavor to preserve, defend, in- 
crease and advance. I will not be in any counsel, action, or treaty 
in which shall be plotted against our said Lord, and the said 



338 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Roman Church, anything to the hurt or prejudice of their persons 
right, honor, state or power : and if I shall know of any such thing 
to be treated or agitated by any whatsoever, I will hinder it to my 
power and as soon as I can I will signify it to our said Lord, or 
by some other by whom it may come to his knowledge . The rules 
of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolic decrees, ordinances or dis- 
posals, reservations, provisions, and mandates, I will observe with 
all my might and cause to be observed by others. HERETICS, 
SCHISMATICS, AND REBELS TO OUR SAID LORD OR HIS 
AFORESAID SUCCESSORS I WILL TO MY UTMOST 
POWER PERSECUTE AND WAGE WAR WITH. I will come 
to a Council when I am called, unless I be hindered by a canoni- 
cal impediment. I will by myself in person visit the threshold of 
the Apostles ev^ry three years, and give an account to our Lord 
and his aforesaid successors of all my pastoral office, and of all 
things anywise belonging to the state of my church, to the discip- 
line of my clergy and people, and lastly to the salvation of souls 
committed to my trust; and will in like manner humbly receive 
and diligently execute the Apostolic commands. And if I be de- 
tained by a lawful impediment, I will perform all things afore- 
said by a certain messenger hereto specially empowered, a mem- 
ber of my chapter or some other in ecclesiastical dignity or else 
having a parsonage; or in default of these, by a priest of the dio- 
cese; or in default of one of the clergy (of the diocese) by some 
other secular or regular priest of approved integrity and religion, 
fully instructed in all things above mentioned. And such impedi- 
ment I shall make out by lawful proofs to be transmitted by the 
aforesaid messenger to the Cardinal proponent of the holy Roman 
Church in the Congregation of the Sacred Council. The posses- 
sions belonging to my table I will neither sell nor give away, nor 
mortgage, nor grant anew in fee, anywise alienate, not even 
with the consent of the chapter of my church, without consulting 
the Roman Pontiff. And if I shall make any alienation, I will 
thereby incur penalties contained in a certain constitution put 
forth about this matter. So help me God and these Holy Gospels 
of God." 

A black rule has been placed under all that Frankhauser left 
out, one sentence being in italic capitals for emphasis. 

Now, don't let any one get the impression that the Reverend 
Jesuit Frankhauser thinks he lied, or was a false witness for the 
pope's church; no, indeed! He merely adhered to certain fixed 
principles of the papal church, such as "keep no faith with here- 
tics," "conceal your faith when among heretics," or so state a 
proposition as will let the other party "deceive himself" as to 
matters concerning which he has no right to know; you will ob- 
serve that in his translation Bro. Frankhauser did not say it was 
the COMPLETE oath; no doubt he resorted to papal mental res- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 339 

ervation when he was writing it; in his first paragraph he men- 
tally reserved the words "in part" just as they occur in paren- 
thesis, thus : "The oath taken by Bishops as found in the Roman 
Pontifical is (in part) as follows." 

(It was said that, as a result of the lectures mentioned, a promi- 
nent Roman Catholic of the city stated he was going to investi- 
gate certain phases of his faith and practices, and if found to be 
as charged by the Rev. E. A. Jordan, ex-Catholic, he would quit 
the system ; no doubt he went to his priest for information, or to 
papal "history" written by priests, where he got the "TRUTH" 
of the matters just as J. B. F. gave Protestant Macon the "true" 
bishop's oath! Anyway, said party is still in the fold.) 

A "lie" is denned as being the utterance of a falsehood with 
the intention to deceive: to prove to the "heretics" of Macon that 
the papal church has no sinister designs against Protestants, the 
Rev. Frankhauser published and circulated the oath as above. In 
my translation a black rule is placed under each word and sen- 
tence which this Jesuit left out of his printed copy. To those who 
have eyes to see, ears to hear and brains to think, those BLACK 
RULES eloquently speak volumes: they picture the very essence 
of popery when dealing with the rest of the world ; they indicate 
the manner in which facts of history are written by papists for 
their own, and for non-Catholic, consumption; those black rules 
speak in flaming words to every American citizen against com- 
mitting the interest of city, state or nation into the hands of any 
follower of the pope, especially the interest of the public school 
system, because all members of the Roman church are creatures 
of the pope who made that oath to which all Romanists are sub- 
ject; if ANY one says he does not agree with this irreformable 
law of that church, such person is better than the system to which 
he is in conscience bound; however, as long as one adheres to it, 
he is SUBJECT to said oath, as Farrell said, Catholics are will- 
ing to "stand up and be counted" : he must assent to it. 

To understand how laymen of that church are joined to the 
pope through the bishop's oath, we must know just what relation 
the bishop sustains to the pope. Pope Leo XIII clearly furnishes 
this information, saying: 

"In denning the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of 
souls but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it 
must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to 
dogmas of which the obstinate denial can not be disjoined from 
the CRIME OF HERESY. Nay, it is not enough sincerely and 
firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not denned by any 
solemn pronouncement of the church, are by her proposed to be- 
lief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, 
and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed with 
Catholic and divine faith. But this likewise must be reckoned 



340 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

amongst the duties of all Christians, that they allow themselves 
to be RULED AND DIRECTED BY THE AUTHORITY AND 
LEADERSHIP OF BISHOPS, and above all by the Apostolic 
See." (Page 194, Enc. Lets.) 

Again he says: 

"The like disposition and the same order should prevail in every 
Christian state by so much the more that the political prudence 
of the Pontiff embraces diverse and multiform things; for it is 
his charge not only to rule the church, but generally so to REGU- 
LATE the actions of Christian (papal) citizens that they may 
be IN APT CONFORMITY to their hope of gaining eternal 
salvation. Whence it is clear that in addition to the complete 
accordance of thought and deed, the faithful (i. e., laymen) should 
imitate the practical political wisdom of the ecclesiastical au- 
thority. Now the administration of Christian affairs immediately 
under the Roman Pontiff APPERTAINS TO THE BISHOPS, 
who, although they attain not to the summit of pontifical power, 
ARE NEVERTHELESS TRUE PRINCES IN THE ECCLE- 
SIASTICAL HIERARCHY; . . . they have members of the 
clergy (priests) to share their duties and carry out their de- 
cisions. EVERY ONE has to regulate HIS MODE OF CON- 
DUCT according to THIS CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH 
WHICH IT IS NOT IN THE POWER OF ANY MAN TO 
CHANGE. Consequently, just as in the exercise of their episco- 
pal authority the bishops ought to be united with the Apostolic 
See, so should the members of the clergy and the laity live in 
close union with their bishop," 202 lb. 

Are there Catholic laymen, priests, bishops? Is there a pope? 
If so, they are all bound together in their several relations BY 
THE BISHOP'S OATH. That oath is anti-social, anti-American, 
which makes the system exacting it UNLAWFUL, and the Con- 
gress of the United States must so declare. Like an individual, 
a nation has a temporal and a spiritual essence, so set out in the 
Constitution and denned as inalienable rights to life, liberty, prop- 
erty, civil and religious liberty. Every drop of bl6od and every 
dollar in the country would form the barrier placed between those 
rights and invasion by alien hosts : now read again that inhuman 
oath of the bishop; analyze every word, especially those that 
Jesuit Frankhauser omitted in his "version"; now think of the 
history of Romanism covering the past fifteen hundred years 
under the spirit of that oath — and remember Rome boasts she 
"never changes": is there one single vestige of the United States 
Constitution left? NO, NOT ONE. 

To comprehend just how broad and sweeping is that oath, we 
must remember that every citation from Leo XIII in this book, 
from the Catechism and other authoritative sources, is based on 
"the rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the Roman Pon- 
tiff," or on some of "the rules of the holy fathers, the apostolic 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 341 

decrees, ordinances, or disposals, reservations and mandates" of 
the pope, to which every member must assent and be obedient, 
which makes every one of them an enemy of the Constitutional 
rights of free conscience, free press, free speech, right to assem- 
ble, as also of the free public school system. 

Does this oath cause you to think of the Lowly Nazarene as 
you read it, or the Prussian Militarist? 

Does that oath appeal to you as the "rules" of a ''well-regulated 
family," or mandates of feudal clansmen? 

The oath was copied and translated from the "Pontificate 
Romanum" one of the four principal Liturgical books of the 
Roman Catholic church, a ritual by which bishops, priests, abbots 
and abbesses are governed in their work for the pope. A copy 
was secured indirectly through the aid of Cardinal Gibbons, as 
per letter on the subject printed elsewhere, from Benzinger Bros., 
New York — $8.50, while another was secured indirectly by the 
aid of Bishop B. J. Keiley, of Savannah, Ga., from Kenedy & Sons, 
New York — $9.50; both of these houses are publishers, importers 
and dealers in Catholic goods. They will be kept in safe places 
to back up a certain challenge. 

Let papal apologists destroy, if they will or can, every scintilla 
of evidence in this book : let them deny the history, intention and 
spirit of papalism as presented in these pages from many au- 
thentic sources if they can, even then the NATURAL SPIRIT 
of the PAPAL CHURCH, forever as long as there is a pope to 
direct it, is disclosed by the bishop's oath; to admit the oath, 
forces admission of all correlated evidence. The murderous doc- 
trine of St. Thomas and that oath form the foundation upon 
which the Papal Empire rests : the dust of ages may obscure them 
from the eyes of those who, "having eyes to see, see not," but they 
are there, just the same, like hidden charges of dynamite to be 
exploded for the destruction of all not subject thereto, WHEN 
EXPEDIENT! 

Mr. Farrell has manifested a spirit of levity in his letters — 
especially where I failed to catch a typographical error in stating 
a fact, or where I used language or terms that were more am- 
biguous than they would have been if I had at the time given more 
care and attention to reviewing verbiage; he also alleges that I 
use "particular cases to establish a general principle": the oath 
is a "particular case," from a "particular" book issued for the 
"particular" use of "particular" men who are "particularly" se- 
lected and "particularly" sworn to perfect a "particular" system 
of government in America to which "PARTICULAR" Americans 
object! 

I tender, as evidence to the jury — the American people — the 
Catholic bishop's oath, to prove my charge that the papal church 
is a gigantic conspiracy against the human race, which sustains 



342 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

the evidence hereinbefore adduced. Taken alone, it proves that 
no member of the papal church can be a loyal citizen of a demo- 
cratic government; it also proves that papalism is not Chris- 
tianity — is there any kinship between it and the Sermon on the 
Mount? 

In view of Mr. Farrell's hilarity, and the supercilious attitude 
of papal apologists, I make the following offer and proposition: 

I will pay to any Roman Catholic the sum of $5,000 who can 
prove that I have not presented a true transcript of the bishop's 
oath. I also agree, that if they earn the money, I will reimburse 
the publishers for all expenditures that may be made to that date 
and get them to discontinue sale of my book. 

No one is barred ! Romanists, pro-Romanists, and papal apolo- 
gists should pocket that money or — become True Americans and 
oppose that foreign, alien power that exists only to destroy 
FREEDOM. 

If that oath is true, every subject thereto is a foe of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. Considerable has been said in re- 
gard to the alleged oath of the Knights of Columbus, Hibernians, 
and other papal secret societies; logically, it is immaterial whether 
those societies exact an oath or not (but the presumption is, they 
do) ; they exist as creatures OF THE CHURCH — no society can 
be formed among Catholics without the approval of some one in 
authority, hence the right to exist as a society can not be secured 
UNLESS the objects which it seeks to obtain are in strict con- 
formity with the objective of the CHURCH itself; in other words, 
a bona fide Catholic society must be "chartered" by the church of 
Rome— must get authority from the SUPREME LAW OF THE 
CHURCH, and remain under said law. Catholic laymen CAN 
NOT form an association for any purpose not conformable to 
papal supreme law. Those societies bear the same relation to the 
Catholic church as the various States sustain to the Union, which 
have the right to make laws or rules, and prescribe OATHS OF 
ALLEGIANCE to the State, but every law enacted by a State 
must be in harmony with the Constitution of the United States, 
else it is void; every city in a State may legislate for its own 
government, but such legislation must not conflict with the laws 
of the State nor the Constitution. 

Laymen are subject to whatever form of oath the bishop swears 
and it may be presumed the pattern of all oaths of papal socie- 
ties; this fact, therefore, eliminates any plea set up by members 
of such societies; they need not take a special oath — the supreme 
law of their church has prescribed what they must do to be its 
true "children," and that supreme law is epitomized in the 
bishop's oath: to ''persecute" and "fight" or "wage war" against 
heretics (that is, those baptized but not subject to the pope) . 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 343 

"Persecute!" "Fight!" There is no crime too heinous, no deed 
too foul, no torture too severe that is not warranted among the 
"rights" and "mandates" of the pope to "PERSEQUAR ET IM- 
PUGNABO"l Every evil deed committed anywhere during the 
Great War was covered by those words. We heard of people being 
separated from their families, stripped almost naked and marched 
many long miles through the bleakness of European winter — that 
was "persequar" ; those too young or too old to march were shot 
or bayonetted in the presence of their friends and relatives — that 
was "impugnabo"l 

Every bishop is required to report in person to the pope at the 
end of stated periods, when he makes a complete report on every- 
thing that pertains to conditions where he rules, and through the 
bishop he can learn more relative to secrets of State than any 
other man in the world: with Catholics confessing those things 
to the priest which he believes will serve the church, and the 
priest passing information on to the bishop, a great world-wide 
spy system is created that renders Catholicism a menace to all 
nations in time of war; when put to the actual test, Catholics 
must view matters as Priest Phelan said they would if they 
thought war was being waged against the pope — and the pope 
alone would determine the case : "We would say, 'To hell with the 
Government'." 

THE ALLEGED K. OF C. OATH 

In his "Appeal to Fair Minds," Priest Frankhauser devotes 
over six columns to prove that "The Notorious K. of C. Oath" is 
suprious, citing several minor court cases and the findings of 
several high degree Masons of California. In this pamphlet he 
said: 

"When the attention of the Knights of Columbus was called to 
this false oath, they immediately put forth vigorous denials. This, 
however, was not sufficient to convince many Protestants ; and so 
two other steps seemed necessary. 

"First — To exhibit the entire ritual of the K. of C. to leading 
Protestant gentlemen and have them pronounce upon it. 

''Second — To bring the matter into court, in some manner, by 
action against those circulating the oath that it might be denied 
under the form of sworn testimony, and those engaged in diffus- 
ing it obliged to either submit proof or to admit the falsity and 
fraudulent character of their work" 

"The first step was taken in a number of localities" by institut- 
ing actions for libel. 

I assert that the Knights of Columbus are subject to the 
bishop's oath as Catholics, under which they are empowered to 
carry out and execute every provision contained in the alleged 
oath of their society; to "persecute and fight" all who reject 
popery is the supreme command of the Roman church, and those 



344 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

words warrant every vicious, inhuman suggestion contained in 
that oath which they abjure: membership in the Roman church 
carries with it the obligation to believe and perform whatsoever 
is proposed— and all Knights of Columbus, as well as all other 
members of papal societies are under the bishop as members of 
that church, from which fact arises my charge that the papal 
church is a menace to American, Christian, Democratic civiliza- 
tion and, as laymen of said church constitute in part the "power" 
which the bishop swears to use contrary to Christian precepts and 
our Constitution, I most earnestly invite the Knights of Colum- 
bus, the Jesuits, or any other society of laymen or clerics, or their 
combined power in the American Federation of Catholic Societies, 
to enter suit against me in any court of competent jurisdiction; 
I will even dare them, individually or collectively, "To bring the 
matter into court, in some manner" so that I will be "obliged to 
either submit proof or to admit the falsity and fraudulent char- 
acter" of my work relative to the oath of the bishop. 

To remove, as far as I can, all obstacles to that end and to make 
it more interesting, I will agree to co-operate with them and carry 
the oath of the bishop up to the Supreme Court of the State of 
Georgia, and if I lose the case, will pay all costs, and also pay to 
the other party a sum, to be previously agreed upon, at the ratio 
of two to one; but if I win the case, they to pay all costs and one- 
half the amount of my forfeit — they to agree in writing to these 
terms before going to trial. 

Could any proposition be fairer? 

That oath is from the heart of the papal system, which indi- 
cates how bad and dangerous the system is, if true; and it is up 
to the papal church to prove it is untrue as to these United States, 
so "stand up and be counted," gentlemen — especially members of 
the Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia! 

I have intimated several times that Catholics were either ignor- 
ant of what their church requires of them, or that knowing, they 
studiously strive to conceal what they know; if they are sincere, 
and desire to be true citizens of this Republic, they should learn 
all that the bishop's oath requires when they are politically or 
numerically strong enough — as in the matter of the Council of 
Trent marriage law which was put in operation here after there 
were "a sufficient number" of priests on the ground — that oath 
is the predicate of the "INTENTION" of their church under the 
pope and bishops. If they know it, and remain subject thereto, 
they are avowed enemies of our form of government and the 
Constitution which should automatically annul any claim to the 
rights of Amreican citizenship; for it is evident, that if they 
would destroy the Constitution which gives the rights of citizen- 
ship, if they were numerous enough, they should not be permitted 
to come in contact with it in any manner. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 345 

That there are many members of the papal institution who are 
ignorant of what they may be called upon to do, I readily believe; 
but they are in the same category as were the subjects of the 
German Kaiser, who were kept in ignorance of what they would 
be required to believe and perform, yet they did all that was re- 
quired of them ; whether they knew or were ignorant of the inten- 
tion of their kaiser, the world at large learned they were obedient 
subjects. 

Ask any Roman Catholic about the bishop's oath: no doubt he 
will deny it; the teaching of the church advocates that; but if he is 
sincere, he will prove it by going after my $5,000. This may be 
brought to the attention of a Catholic who is not prepared to 
affirm or deny; he may go to his priest with the question, and the 
priest has only to say to the "faithfull," "Creda!" ("It is of 
faith"), or "That does not concern or become you," or "It is a 
falsehood, a calumny by the enemies of Holy Mother Church" 
(as to all intents and purposes Frankhauser answered) , and to his 
dying day that "child" of the church will believe his priest. He 
will also contend that this illustration of his attitude to all grave 
questions affecting our civilization does not disqualify him from 
being a custodian or guardian of DEMOCRACY ! Democracy — 
people who rule themselves! 

The spiritual side of a man or nation determines the conduct 
in relation to others, while it finds expression in the laws of the 
scheme of government set up ; compare the benign laws of Ameri- 
can civilization with the laws of Italian popery ! The laws of the 
papal church reflect the NATURE of the institution, which 
affects the spiritual and governs the physical and political spheres 
of man, all of which CONFLICT WITH THE SUPREME LAW 
OF OUR LAND— THE CONSTITUTION. 

I plead with every one: read and study the Constitution, then 
read the bishop's oath, and imagine yourself living under a Flag 
that exists only to protect the ''rights" of the Roman church and 
to enforce the "rules" of the "holy fathers," and then assume that 
attitude toward papalism and the Constitution as will advance 
your preference. 

In making certain charges against the Roman church, the bur- 
den of proof was on me — I am willing and prepared to meet the 
issue; for the papal church to remain silent now, and refuse to 
follow the same course with me as the Knights of Columbus pur- 
sued in their case, will be that silence which acknowledges in- 
ability to meet the issue, in court or in debate. 

In St. John iii: 14-16 we hear the Redeemer saying, "And as 
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the 
Son of Man be lifted up : That whosoever believeth in Him should 
not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, 
that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 



346 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." This is a 
beautiful picture of Christianity, indicating the work of His min- 
isters ! now turn to the papal rituals and theologies and hear the 
pope, who says he is holding God's place on earth and is Christ's 
vice-gerent and is the head of the only "true" Christian church 
established by Christ, wherein he says all those who have been 
baptized and profess to be Christians but will not submit to his 
authority are "heretics, schismatics and rebels" who are to be 
"persecuted to the limit" of his power and "fought," and if they 
do not become and remain submissive they should be "removed 
from the earth by death." The spirit of this doctrine has made 
a bloody trail fifteen centuries down the corridors of time — is this 
fair land to be marked by that crimson stain? The answer to 
this question is with the freemen of America; and to work out 
the answer requires— INDIFFERENCE. 

The Jews and the great mass of non-church people of America 
may erroneously look upon Romanism and Protestantism as being 
two opposing sects, and that it would be immaterial which pre- 
dominated ; but if they would conscientiously consider the nature 
and objectives of the two forces, they would realize that they are 
vitally concerned. If Protestantism and Freemasonry were de- 
stroyed, the papal religion would be taught to your children in 
the schools by clerics and nuns if they were taught at all; they 
would be made Catholics, as was the "intention" of the Roman 
church in signing that concordat with the Austrian Archduke, to 
put all those Greek children under Roman Catholics in parochial 
schools, which fact was so resented by the non-papal Greeks to 
the extent that some of the students assassinated the Catholic 
ruler who bartered away their rights — and THAT fact was the 
starting of the World War. 

If education was in the hands of Rome, what assurance does 
that church give that this country would not become as illiterate 
as every other country where she was in power? Of course, the 
Jews may not appreciate, for instance, the Protestant Prohibition 
program and all such reforms — but it's that, or the Papal Inqui- 
sition; and Jews certainly ought to know what that means; the 
loss of "easy money" is not near so bad as being the principal 
fagot in a bonfire, or being teased by having red-hot pokers thrust 
into your eyes, or having you put on iron boots filled with melted 
lead ! It is understood that the Jew is combining with the Cath- 
olic for political purposes. Watch your step, Judah! The Ameri- 
can people will resent your lining up with the enemies of the only 
real haven the world offers YOU; I caution you in all kindness, 
and without prejudice: forget not the plight of the Jew under 
papalism yesterday, and to-day! 

Those who belong to no church owe a debt to Christianity; it is 
through the influence of Protestant Christianity that the Ameri- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 347 

can Government was perfected ; the Declaration of Independence, 
Constitution, and all institutions of the land reflect the King 
James Version of the Holy Scriptures, which makes life with you 
different from that with the Mexican or Spaniard, or any papal 
country; all the freedom and rights you enjoy rest upon Protes- 
tant Christianity — freedom and rights such as no other people in 
the whole world can boast; and if you value them, it is as much 
your duty to defend them as it is to defend your country against 
any other foreign invasion. 

Those who style themselves Protestants, and those who are 
members of the great Masonic fraternity, who have been drinking 
the pope's soothing syrup especially prepared for them, that 
"there are not enough Catholics in this country to constitute a 
danger," should see a menace in the fact that this small, one- 
sixth Catholic population exerted an influence in some manner 
sufficient to give the papal church preference and special privi- 
leges in army cantonments while Freemasonry and Protestantism 
were restricted almost to exclusion ! That was a practical demon- 
stration of papal power; and it is strong enough to wreck this 
Government by concentrating efforts along the lines of the 
bishop's oath, if the other 83 per cent, of the people remain in- 
different and continue to swallow papal dope. 

A word to the Protestant ministers of America : As watchmen 
on the tower, you are traitors to God and country and unworthy 
of support if, after reading the bishop's oath you do not, in your 
Sunday Schools and pulpits, instruct the people as to the inten- 
tion of Catholicism, the difference between that religion and 
Protestantism, and teach them their duty to the country and the 
church regarding this issue. Spain tells you what the bishop's 
oath means — in fact, every Latin nation under the sun, or any 
other where Rome has been in power, tells the same story — shows 
the "finished" work of the oath: and he who refuses to do his 
duty to his fellowman in this matter is either criminally ignor- 
ant, guilty of simony, or is a moral and physical coward; the 
purpose of the Anti-Christ is to destroy the influence of Christ in 
the world : the hatred of the papal church is directed only against 
those who have been baptized in other churches, as shown by that 
oath, and if that oath be Christian, YOU are not. 

Because our ministers and other educational factors have been 
recreant to their duty the people of this country have grown up 
in almost utter ignorance of Roman Catholicism, large numbers 
embracing that "faith" not knowing what the oath really meant. 

The press, generally speaking, being merely lashes in "party" 
whips with the handles held by Rome, is a lost cause to American 
civilization, and will remain so until there is a counter-organiza- 
tion to bring them back into line with Americanism. 



348 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Because the one-in-six papal population go after what they 
want as one man while the other five-sixths are indifferent, there 
lis no wonder that the press panders to Catholicism, but, like Sam- 
son, shorn of his power for good, sleeping in the lap of the papal 
Delilah, it may wake up some day to find it is no longer a power 
with the people it once was and as it should be. 

"I reach you my hand," says the Catholic church through its 
Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, but I can not accept 
it : looking as it were beyond the countenance wreathed in smiles 
I gaze into the HEART of the SYSTEM; there I behold the same 
spirit of hatred and intolerance that kindled the fires of Smith- 
field, the diabolical spirit of hatred that has made a bloody trail 
across fifteen hundred years and festooned the pathway of man 
with scenes of horror beyond description; I listen, and catch the 
bitter wail, borne on the winds that blow from every quarter of 
the globe, from the seventy million human beings who were put to 
death by fire and sword and rack and tortures unspeakable to 
please him who would dethrone the Eternal God; I hear the sigh, 
as the moaning of many trees in pine forests, of the hundreds of 
millions who have been born and kept in slavery to that man-god 
on the Tiber — a world-wide political conspiritor masquerading 
under the livery of heaven— hundreds of millions who lived and 
died in ignorance of their Creator, because of that system that 
can exist only as it may enforce its blighting, withering "right" 
to exist as a "society charactered as by right divine," to "legislate, 
judge and punish," and I involuntarily recoil as one would from 
the contaminating presence of a leper! 

"If you can show me," the skeptic may say, "just one tangible 
result of this oath on Catholics in America — in Georgia — I will 
be convinced." Very well ! But, like some ponderous machine, it 
would be impossible to describe in detail the functions of each part 
in a treatise of only several hundred pages; but I will point out 
certain "gearings" and demonstrate their functions which, in 
conjunction with the whole, produce certain, positive effects: the 
bishop swears, "The Apostolic (papal) decrees, ordinances, dis- 
positions, reservations, provisions, and mandates, I will observe 
with all my might, and cause to be observed by others"; we turn 
now to the Catechism, which is taught daily in parochial schools, 
and we learn Catholics are taught, from early infancy, that "By 
Silence" they become guilty of the sins committed by another; 
these parts or "gearings" from the oath and Catechism function 
with the positive result that a Catholic MUST resent his "reli- 
gion" being questioned or discussed in newspapers, in Protestant 
pulpits, or in public halls by lecturers, and they must resort to 
any means to prevent it that "expediency" will warrant; so, we 
see the result of the bishop's oath and the Catechism exemplified 
in those Knights of Columbus going into the private hotel-room of 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 349 

Rev. William Black, in Marshall, Texas, and shooting him down 
in cold blood because he would not surrender his Constitutional 
right of free speech, cease his lectures on popery, and leave the 
city; one of the "mandates" of the pope prohibits free speech, so 
we have the mandate of the pope, the bishop sworn to enforce it, 
the Catechism-trained Knights of Columbus who would not be 
guilty of Black's "sin" against the pope by remaining "silent," 
and there was a dead man ! 

"I will to my utmost power persecute and wage war with" those 
who oppose the pope, swears the bishop, and a part of his "power" 
is the LAYMEN of his church, who, on their part, have sworn 
"I am ready to obey ALL that she (the Roman church) com- 
mands"; and in Haverhill, Mass., we see a mob of LAYMEN 
attacking the City Hall to prevent a man from discussing the 
question of appropriating public funds to sectarian schools! The 
Rev. Otis Spurgeon, a lecturer, was bodily taken from the room 
of a downtown hotel in Denver, Colorado, carried twenty miles 
into the country by a mob of LAYMEN, beaten almost to death, 
and left naked, beaten and bruised to die as some beast by the 
roadside. Many instances of recent demonstrations of papalism 
in action in America could be recited, but these will suffice. 

On more than one occasion the people of Macon, Ga., have felt 
the "power" of the bishop's oath in the efforts made to close halls 
against lecturers on popery; in fact, so great was the pressure of 
this power, that a Protestant City Council went so far as to 
cancel a lease of City Auditorium after money had been paid for 
it, although it had been recently rented to negros for some sort 
of display! But the American people, seeing what was being 
done, exerted a greater "power" over the Council, and the lectures 
were delivered per schedule. 

How well the bishop and laymen work in harmony was shown 
in Spain in 1914, when the Christian Endeavor held a convention; 
the Spanish Government had to furnish protection to prevent a 
massacre; the spirit of that oath was demonstrated in Macon, 
Ga., a few years ago, when Rev. Gypsy Smith, Jr., came here on 
the invitation of the Macon Ministerial Union, for a series of 
meetings, lasting three weeks (about first of 1915, according to 
my recollection) ; the Knights of Columbus had secured the City 
Auditorium for a lecture by one Pete Collins, to be delivered on 
Thursday night of the last week of the Smith meetings; the Min- 
isterial Union made the Knights of Columbus a proposition, to 
the effect that the Union would rent the Grand Theater at a cost 
of about one hundred dollars, and let the Knights meet there; 
they flatly refused, the statement being made that they had 
rented the City Hall, and intended to have it; the Hall cost only 
ten dollars! 



350 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

A signed letter to Rev. Mr. Callaway, printed elsewhere, is of 
interest in connection with the above facts. 

If the foregoing does not convince one as to what Catholicism 
is, such person is good material for that institution! 

All property held by the Roman church in America is owned 
by the pope of Rome : the bishop swears he will not sell or in any 
manner dispose of anything of value without consulting the pope 
and gaining his consent, therefore, such property belonging to a 
foreign power that declares itself to be a "perfect" government, 
is, to all intents and purposes, "foreign territory" which can not 
be "invaded" by the State, therefore, it was the duty of Bishop 
B. J. Keiley, of Savannah, according to his oath, which makes 
him a "Prince" in the Papal Government, to prohibit the inspec- 
tion of papal institutions in defiance of the Laws of the State of 
Georgia — and as far as I know, there has been no inspection. Is 
the bishop's "power" effective? 

CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY 

There are people who think that, because the Constitution pro- 
vides for civil and religious liberty, the papal church is within 
her rights under the Constitution, and can not be reached by law ; 
this opinion is fundamentally wrong, as I shall attempt to prove, 
by illustration: the Constitution provides also, for instance, for 
the ownership of fire-arms, but forbids their use where it would 
unlawfully jeopardize or destroy the life of another; a man may 
possess a high-power rifle according to law, but if he thinks he 
has the right to fire it, because he is on his own premises, and 
does so, killing another person, either on the same premises or 
elsewhere, he is a murderer under the law, and would be tried as 
such; so, we see at once that while the Constitution gives the 
right to "bear arms," it also prohibts doing so if another person 
be illegally deprived of his right to life. Likewise, the guarantee 
of religious freedom gives no one the right to practice a religion 
if in its exercise it would destroy that right for another. This is 
so clear that it seems unnecessary to argue it at length. 

The papal church construes the Constitutional right of reli- 
gious liberty to be a license to destroy that right and its enjoy- 
ment by non-Catholics. Under the plea that religious tolerance 
is a legal right, the pope sets up his parochial schools in opposi- 
tion to the State free school, in which he teaches the autocratic 
theory of government to children who should be trained in the 
principles of democracy, using the legal right of tolerance to 
undermine and destroy the principle and law which permit the 
existence of that church on an equal basis with other denomina- 
tions. 

If it can be maintained under the law that one has the right to 
"practice" his pistol with the avowed purpose of killing out the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 351 

community after becoming an expert, then, and only then, can it 
be contended that Rome has the right, under the law, to "prac- 
tice" her religion which means destruction to those who will not 
subscribe to her laws and dogmas, which have been sufficiently 
presented in these pages, and substantiated by the bishop's oath. 
With the bishop's and layman's oaths in mind, read the follow- 
ing from the "Manual of Christian Doctrine," which is taught to 
people in America in the papal schools: 

Qu. "45. What are the errors against revelation?" 

Ans. ". . . 2. Protestantism and all heresies which attack any 
one of the revealed truths. 

"46. What is the source of these errors? 

"It is the criminal result of reason against the divine teaching; 
a revolt which is the outcome of the PRETENDED RIGHT OF 
PRIVATE JUDGMENT." Page 6. 

Lay that doctrine by the side of the Constitution; according to 
it, Protestants and Masons are guilty of heresy, while papists are 
under oath to "persecute and make war" on, notwithstanding the 
fact that the Supreme Law of our land gives the right to what 
the pope declares is "CRIMINAL." This doctrine, being an ar- 
raignment and condemnation of the right of religious liberty, is 
an attack upon the Constitution, which fact outlaws the papal 
church and denies that institution the right to "bear arms" and 
''practice" her pistol, because the evidence above shows that when 
Catholicism becomes expert (secures power and numbers suffi- 
cient), the "criminal" use of "reason" and "private judgment" 
will come to an end. 

That doctrine is founded on the basic law of the Roman church ; 
without it, there could be no Catholic church; and the same law 
that makes that doctrine exacts obedience to it by those who are 
themselves created by that law. Every Romanist is a creature, 
not by faith, but by law; therefore, those in Amerca who value 
their rights under the Constitution may as well face the issue 
first as last: the "rights" of the papal church are in direct con- 
flict with the "rights" guaranteed by the Constitution; the papal 
law and institutions thereunder must end, or the Supreme Law 
of the land and American institutions thereunder must cease — 
which shall it be? 

We hear much about the "small" number of Catholics in our 
country; but that number had sufficient power to throw the 
national orbit out of its sphere during the Great War so that 
Freemasonry and Protestantism were limited around army can- 
tonments, made up of such "large" numbers of non-Catholics, the 
result of Jesuitical "courtly intrigue" with politicians in power, 
and it's just as easy for the pope's "small' number in America to 
destroy the Constitution if the people remain as indifferent in the 
future as they have been in the past. 



352 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

secret societies condemned 

Keeping in mind the bishop's oath, and the alleged oath of the 
Knights of Columbus, the following legislation of the papal 
church should appeal to Masons — they are partial excerpts from 
Taunton's Canon Law on "Secret Societies": 

"1. Secret societies have been condemned by many popes. The 
main grounds for the condemnation have been the OATH of 
secrecy; the BLIND OBEDIENCE due to the leaders; and the 
naturalism which is set forth instead of the Christian revelation 
confined to the church. Another cause has been the war against 
Religion as well as against the State which has marked so many 
of those societies, and the substitution of Masonic benevolence for 
the Christian virtue of charity. 

"2. Clement XII condemned Freemasonry by name April 28, 
1738, in Constitution 'In eminent?; Benedict XIV (one of the 
popes who instituted the Pontificalc Romanum, with the bishop's 
oath), in Bull 'Providas,' March 18, 1751; Pius VII in Bull 'Eccle- 
siam a Iesu Christo,' Sept. 13, 1821; Pius VIII, in Encyclical 
'Traditi,' March 20, 1820; Leo XII, in Apostolic Letter 'Quo gra- 
vissima,' March 13, 1826; Gregory XVI in Encyclical 'Mirari vos* 
August 15, 1832; and Pius IX, by one Encyclical, 'Qui pluribus,' 
November 9, 1846; this pope also, by his Constitution 'Apostolicae 
Sedis,' of 1869, renewed the excommunication latae sententiae 
reserved to the Roman Pontiff against all who become Free- 
masons, Carbonari (Italian order), or sectaries of this kind; also 
against those who favor them and do not denounce their leaders. 

"3. Leo XIII, Encyclical 'Humanum genus,' April 20, 1884, re- 
newed all that his predecessors had done. 

"5. The condemnation of secret societies is absolute, and no ex- 
ception is made for any country. If in some countries it may be 
said that Freemasons are only a benevolent body, it still remains 
that they are in communion with, and recognize as brethren, other 
Freemasons whose warfare against religion is undisguised." 

Now, if there is anything in the Masonic oath that binds one 
to the purpose of persecuting and making war on those who will 
not join the order; or if it requires a candidate to agree to do 
things which are unknown to him — as when one joins the Roman 
church, to swear to be governed by all the laws and decrees pro- 
mulgated a thousand years ago that he has never heard of, along 
with the provisions of the bishop's oath — then I can understand 
why a Mason can not consistently oppose Roman Catholicism: 
laymen of the papal church are bound under the bishop's oath as 
well as their allegiance through confirmation, to the pope, to do 
all he commands; and if Freemasonry does not exact a similar 
oath in the matter of forcing others into the order and making 
them subject to Masonic leaders therein, and if the bishop's oath 
is the pope's interpretation of "Religion," then I am glad that 
secret societies, especially that of Freemasonry, oppose such 
"Religion" and pray the tribe may increase. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 353 

Of course, a Mason must compare the bishop's oath with that 
which he swears, and be governed in his attitude to papalism as 
truth may suggest. 

"who started the war?" 

Under the above caption the Literary Digest for October 7, 
1916, has this interesting news item: 

". . . The Budapest Kepes Hirlap, the organ of the Catholic 
Party in Hungary, offers its readers this information as to the 
real instigators of the war: 

" 'The cause of the present terrible war must not be sought in 
the murder of the heir-apparent; this murder was only the final 
signal for many other murders past and to come. ... It has been 
proved that the Archduke and his wife were murdered at the in- 
stigation of the Freemasons. The murderers themselves were 
Freemasons, and the society of Freemasons supplied them with 
advice, encouragement and arms. For our present misery neither 
British pride, nor Slav armies, nor Servian insolence, nor Grey, 
nor Pachitch are responsible, but wholly an solely the spirit, the 
conduct, and the aims of Freemasons. They have conquered the 
world with their diabolical power. Freemasons have kindled the 
fire over our heads. Freemasons are operating with knife and 
bombs. Freemasons are making the present war as inhuman as 
it is." 

Notwithstanding the fact that Cardinal Manning predicted the 
overthrow of the pope's temporal power in Italy would result in 
a great world war, wherein the "enemies" of the "church" would 
destroy each other, after which the pope would again be a tem- 
poral king; and although the bishop's oath and layman's oath 
prove that the papal church will always be a fomenter of wars, 
great and small, for the purpose of advancing the interests of the 
Roman church (as was demonstrated by the advantages and spe- 
cial privileges accorded that institution in our country during 
the war) , yet if a priest-editor says Freemasonry caused the war, 
that is an established fact, and becomes a closed question to Cath- 
olics, the world over. 

Mr. Farrell quoted from Pike's "Morals and Dogma"; the fol- 
lowing two paragraphs are quoted from Albert Pike, Grand Com- 
mander of the Supreme Council of 33d Degree Scottish Rite 
Masonry, replying to Pope Leo XIII 's attack on Freemasonry. 
As to Freemasonry Pike said : 

"Its complacent sense of security may be rudely disturbed by 
and by" — Remember, Masonry was at first barred from the can- 
tonments — "It seems to me that an organized crusade against it 
by all the Roman Catholics in the United States, an anti-Masonic 
movement organized and directed by the papacy, and engineered 
by priests, bishops and cardinals, is not a thing to be made light 
of by the American Masonry, treated with indifference and re- 
garded with a lordly and sublime contempt. And it is very cer- 



354 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

tain that its protestations that it has no political or religious 
opinions, and no sympathies with the revolutionary tendencies of 
the Masonry of the Continent, will neither placate nor win for it 
respect anywhere. 

''If, in other countries, Freemasonry has lost sight of the An- 
cient Landmarks, even tolerating communism and atheism, it is 
better to endure ten years of these evils than it would be TO 
LIVE A WEEK UNDER THE DEVILISH TYRANNY of the 
INQUISITION AND OF THE BLACK SOLDIERY OF LOY- 
OLA. Atheism is a dreary unbelief, BUT it at least DOES NOT 
persecute, torture, or ROAST MEN who believe that there IS A 
GOD. Freemasonry will not long indulge in extravagancies of 
opinion or action anywhere. It has within itself energy and 
capacity to free itself in time of all errors: and he greatly be- 
littles Humanity who proclaims it is UNSAFE to let ERROR 
say what it will, if TRUTH is left free to combat and confute it. 
But Freemasonry will effect its reforms in its own proper way; 
and would NOT resort, if it could, not even to save itself from 
dissolution, TO MEANS LIKE THOSE WHICH THE PAPACY 
HAS HERETOFORE EMPLOYED, and WOULD GLADLY 
EMPLOY AGAIN, to extirpate Judiaism, Heresy and Free- 
masonry." 

Albert Pike delivered this Allocution in 1864 — and it seems his 
prediction that Freemasonry would have "its complacent sense 
of security . . . rudely disturbed" was fully realized during the 
Great War, among other things, being the specialty, it appears, 
of appointing Romanists to great positions of trust, etc., while 
all non-Catholic forces were considered only secondary. 

"I reach you my hand — " Knowing that all laymen are subject 
to the oath of the bishop, that they are bound together into one 
solid body in the Federated Catholic Societies, I believe that oath 
will sow the seeds of discord in any land — array father against 
son, son against father at the instigation of an alien whose lust 
for supremacy is insatiate and far transcends the requirements 
of natural law — sowing to the wind to reap the whirlwind : plant- 
ing dragon's teeth in fertile soil to fructify and rend every tie of 
friendship, and destroy the peace and harmony of a great nation 
and plunge it into intestine strife at the ballot box and otherwise, 
I can not take his hand ; to do so would be an endorsement of the 
oath to which he is bound : an oath which makes him desire to de- 
stroy all that I hold most dear and sacred: HOW CAN AN 
AMERICAN CITIZEN FELLOWSHIP HIM WHO IS SWORN 
TO "PERSECUTE AND WAR" ON HIM AND HIS COUN^ 
TRY? (Of course, it is understood, that if Mr. Farrell or any 
other Roman Catholic should approach me as a private individual 
in any manner, I would extend the same courtesy and treatment 
accorded any other person; I have the utmost sympathy for the 
average Roman Catholic, because I am sure very few know what 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 355 

is required of them by their system. This friendly attitude is 
toward the individual, not the system.) 

I have this to say to those who read the bishop's oath: You see 
that it provides for the annihilation of the Constitution; I had 
brothers in the Great War; American blood and money were ex- 
pended in foreign lands, first to establish its principles there, but 
especially, we were told, to preserve it at home; it was "popular" 
to "cuss" the Germans, so every man, particularly those who 
would not be called on to fight them, "whooped" for war — very 
few cried "Come on, Boys!" but the very air was filled with the 
shouts, "Go on, Boys!" And the boys went; those who did not 
want to go were termed SLACKERS: any man who questioned 
anything pertaining to the modus operandi of the Administration 
were "slackers": IF THE GERMAN FLAG WAS FLYING 
FROM THE CAPITOL'S DOME IN WASHINGTON THE 
CONSTITUTION WOULD NOT BE BURIED AS DEEP AS 
THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE BISHOP'S OATH 
REQUIRE: and he who does not DISPROVE THAT OATH is 
A SLACKER and A COWARD UNWORTHY TO BE THE 
KAISER'S BOOT-BLACK, if he does not resist it! 

If you did not "whoop" for war for the money you would get 
out of it; if you did not "cuss" the Germans — and they needed 
"cussing" if untrue to America— BECAUSE YOU BELIEVED 
YOU WOULD GET "CUSSED" IF YOU DIDN'T, and will not 
put your soul and pocketbook in the fight to preserve the Consti- 
tution against a foe a thousand times more dangerous than the 
German Kaiser, YOU will be recorded in a certain book with a 
YELLOW BACK — whether you be layman or preacher, President 
or street-sweeper; for the bird that can sing and won't sing will 
be made to sing — some sort of song — and your own brother may 
be a "book-keeper!" 

To the man in any walk of life, it matters not who, that does 
not stand as an AMERICAN CITIZEN against ANY foe of the 
Constitution because he fears the papal boycott will cost him a 
few dollars, while our young manhood had to face death on for- 
eign battlefields in behalf of the Flag, REMEMBER ! remember, 
there are but few games at which two can not play! 

And to the papists in America — know this: the keepers of that 
"YELLOW BOOK" understand and appreciate the suggestion, 
which was so remarkably successful in keeping the papal Irish 
out of the Great Conflict; it looks good; and it is well known that 
no member in the pope's army will act unless directed by his cap- 
tain, the priest! Verbum sat sapienti. 



356 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

APPENDIX 

•• 

LETTERS ON THE PROPOSED DEBATE 

In concluding my objections to Mr. Farrell's answers to the 
Thirty-two Questions, I challenged the Catholic Laymen's Asso- 
ciation of Georgia to debate certain propositions indicated else- 
where, and the following are the letters passing between us on 
the subject: 

CATHOLIC LAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA 

Augusta, Ga., Oct. 24, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 

American National Bank Building, 
Macon, Ga. 

Dear Sir: You probably are somewhat impatient for me to 
take up your questions in proper order, so I shall defer further 
preliminary observation for the time being. 

Noting that you have united Questions 1 and 2 and further that 
you propose to debate the subject matter of 2 along with 6, 7, 8, 
9, and 19 in a series of lectures before an audience in your city, 
which I hope we can arrange to bring about. 

Now about the debate: The idea appeals to me very much, I 
could not consent, of course, to your paying the expenses of our 
representative ; we shall take care of that. We would prefer not 
to have any admission fee, each bearing half of all necessary cost. 

We will, of course, have to agree on the moderators, although I 
would agree to your selecting them, say three or five, provided 
they do not belong to any denomination or order of which you or 
your representative is a member. 

The main thing would be to have all the citizens of Georgia 
represented. Inasmuch as the person appearing for us would 
represent all the Catholic people of Georgia we would expect the 
person you select as his opponent to be a representative of all the 
"non-Catholic" people of the State. 

If you can arrange this in the near future I shall be very glad, 
and the Catholic Laymen of Georgia will rejoice, for nothing could 
be more to their purpose to bring about a more friendly relation 
among all citizens, regardless of creed. 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

To that letter I answered: 

Macon, Ga., Nov. 3, 1917. 
Catholic Laymen's Association, 
Mr. J. J. Farrell, Mgr., 
Augusta, Ga. 
Dear Sir : I have received many communications from you re- 
cently regarding questions submitted, none of which, except in 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 357 

remote instances, comply with my oft-repeated request that an- 
swers must be based on cited highest church authority — popes 
and general church councils — therefore have given the correspon- 
dence no attention. 

Your letter of Oct. 24th, however, offers something tangible and 
interesting : I am pleased to note that the idea of a debate appeals 
to you. 

As to time, how would about the first week in January suit 
you? I understand, of course, that in all minor matters you have 
the decision. 

The expense of this, for seven nights, will cost, for hall rent 
and advertising, about $220, half of such expense, as you suggest, 
to be taken care of by each party, as well as each side providing 
for its own representative's expenses. 

As to umpire or moderator, I am of the opinion that the au- 
dience should be its own umpire; the objective being educational, 
each hearer will arrive at conclusions regardless of an umpire's 
decisions. 

I think there should be a joint chairmanship to maintain deco- 
rum and cause adherence to such rules as may be agreed upon. 

I would be glad to have you outline and submit a plan of pro- 
cedure. Respectfully, c. A. Yarbrough. 

Augusta, Ga., Nov. 10, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 

American National Bank Building, 
Macon, Ga. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of Nov. 3d in reply to ours of Oct. 24th, 
regarding your challenge to debate, does not mention what we 
specified as "the main thing" in arrangements, namely, that your 
speaker should represent all the "non-Catholics," as ours would 
represent all the Catholics, in the State, in order, as was stated, 
"to have all citizens of Georgia represented," in the matter. 

This may be accounted for by your statement that you have 
given our letters "no attention"; but if you will give attention to 
the fifth paragraph of this one letter you answer, you will dis- 
cern that the matter of whom your speaker would represent, is, 
"the main thing" as we said; for it goes to the very core of our 
purpose, "to bring about a more friendly relation among all citi- 
zens, regardless of creed," to accomplish which in our opinion 
scarcely anything would do more than an even tempered public 
discussion in which the Catholic and non-Catholic people, through 
their accredited spokesman, would meet, shake hands and talk 
things over. 

"If you can arrange this," I told you, "the Catholic Laymen will 
rejoice, for nothing could be more to their purpose," and there- 
fore, you can imagine my disappointment when you suggest ar- 
rangements about most everything else but "this"; although, I 
might suppose that the omission, if not inadvertent, is due, per- 
haps, to the arrangements in this respect not being near comple- 
tion, and in that case you doubtless will advise me in due course, 



358 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

giving me the name of the "champion," together with the exact 
terms of the proposition he will think sufficient to cover the sub- 
ject-matter in the premises. 

Until then, we can not, of course, fix the time. As to the ex- 
pense, the amount you name seems only reasonable, and as to 
moderators, our views coincide. The rules to govern the discus- 
sion, however, should properly be submitted by you as the chal- 
lenging party, I believe, but all these matters are clearly sub- 
ordinate to "The main thing," about which I await your advice. 

Very truly, 
JJF/MC J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

Macon, Ga., Nov. 25, 1917. 
Catholic Laymen's Association, 
Mr. J. J. Farrell, Mgr., 
Augusta, Ga. 

Gentlemen : Replying in particular to yours of Oct. 24-Nov. 10, 
regarding what you are pleased to consider "the main thing" in 
order to have a debate: If you will carefully consider what you 
request, that the person I put up must "be a representative of all 
the 'non-Catholics' of the State," you will readily observe that 
the restrictive qualification completely blocks the game; I had 
about concluded to drop the matter entirely, but the receipt of 
other letters from you seem to open up better possibilities, there- 
fore I call your attention to "the main thing" : 

I am sure your association will select a man whom you consider 
capable of handling any subject we may debate and adequately 
represent the Roman Catholics of Georgia, but as there are infi- 
dels, agnostics, Jews, socialists, etc., and a very large number of 
non-church people in Georgia, there is not an intelligent man in 
America who would undertake to represent "all the non-Catholics 
of the State." 

Roman Catholicism and Protestantism represent two world-wide 
principles, and the man I put up will undertake only to represent 
the Protestant mind relative to any question under debate. 

As to who your representative may be does not interest me — 
if you will be satisfied with your selection, I will raise no objec- 
tion; the man I put up will present subjects from the Protestant 
angle, and of course, who he may be is likewise a matter of no 
interest to you. 

You express a desire in several letters, to broaden the scope 
of the debate: very well; to offer you an unbounded latitude, I 
present the following, and challenge you to debate thereon: 

"Resolved. That the Roman Catholic Church Is Not a Christian 
Institution." 

If you accept this, I will proceed to arrange a list of perhaps 
six or more topics, each of which will offer a field as broad as the 
challenge. 

Now, as to the various questions asked in your several com- 
munications: when you signify that you have finished writing, 
I intend to take up your letters and present a sort of compendium 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 359 

in reply, which will, no doubt, disabuse your mind of some errone- 
ous impressions and at the same time explain a Protestant lay- 
man's reasons for conclusions and deductions. 

I am pressed for time, and can not give each letter and subject 
the daily attention necessary for a satisfactory consideration. 

It is my purpose, if we can arrange this debate, to have it 
pitched on a high plane : each party dealing in facts to the utter 
exclusion of personalities. 

Yours truly, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

N. B. — How about having the debates stenographically re- 
ported, and published? That would be much better than what 
either of us have suggested so far. 

Augusta, Ga., Dec. 3, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 

American National Bank Building, 
Macon, Ga. 

Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of Nov. 25, in reference to 
debate : 

Had you not completely misunderstood the aim of our associa- 
tion — "to bring about more friendly relations among all citizens, 
irrespective of creed" — you must have seen that so far as our 
purpose is concerned there are only two classes of citizens. We are 
the united Catholic citizens of Georgia speaking with one voice 
to all non-Catholic citizens and asking only that we be respected 
while we respect all others. 

Now, a public debate in which all of one class is represented 
on one side and only part of the other class is represented on the 
other, must prove disappointing at best. For this reason we 
hoped, in spite of the apparent difficulties, that you might be able 
to secure a representative of non-Catholics to follow up your 
challenge. Nor did we mean for you, or any one, to ''undertake 
to represent" them, as you suggest; there has been entirely too 
much of this undertaking '-to-represent business already. What 
we wished, and do still wish, is that non-Catholics, by selection 
and choice, would designate a spokesman, the same as ourselves. 
You speak of our association selecting a capable man; but that 
is not the point. The point is, that whether or not he was capable 
he would represent the Catholics of Georgia, and that is the kind 
of standing his opponent ought to have with the other side. Then 
we could get somewhere. 

Since you seem unable to get a representative of all non-Cath- 
olics, however, and inasmuch as Protestants in Georgia compose 
a majority of the people, a half -loaf being better than no bread, 
we shall modify "the main thing" somewhat and agree to debate 
with any accredited representative of all Protestants in Georgia. 
I should say, perhaps, to avoid further confusion, that your man 
who "will undertake to represent the Protestant mind," will not 
do unless he represents not merely the Protestant mind but the 
Protestant people, and is, not merely an "undertaker" but the 
accredited spokesman of the Protestant people, same as our 



360 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

spokesman would be as to Catholics. I hope this will remove all 
difficulties in the way of the debate. 

As to broadening the terms, even though the Catholic church 
were not a Christian institution, as you challenge, there are many 
institutions not Christian that have rights in Georgia and that 
debate would get us nowhere ; but this and the other matters you 
mention can be determined after we have named our respective 
spokesmen, their representative character being still "the main 
thing." Very truly, 

JJF/LH J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

Macon, Ga., Dec. 9, 1917. 
Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, 
Mr. J. J. Farrell, Mgr., 
Augusta, Ga. 

Dear Sir: Replying to yours of the 3d instant, subject, debate: 

You seem to be unduly troubled regarding what I can or can 
not do in the matter of securing a man to represent Protestant- 
ism for the debate; to ease your mind on this score, will state that 
no definite arrangements will be contemplated with any man until 
you and I have come to a definite understanding and agreement 
as to every other phase involved in the question of the debate (one 
of the stipulations being, a forfeit of $500 or more) ; after the 
arrangements have been perfected between us, then I will in 
ample time announce who will represent the non-Catholics in the 
debate. I have, in a polite way, endeavored to give you to under- 
stand that the man I select will be satisfactory to me as a Protes- 
tant and stands duly accredited among non-Catholics — one who 
will know whether your man will be dealing in facts or fiction, 
and meet any issue which may be injected, and as I am engineer- 
ing this end of the matter, I absolutely refuse to make known to 
you the names of the men whose services I may use in the debate 
(until agreement between you and I is perfected and signed) : 
under no circumstances will I allow you a censorship of the men 
I may have in mind. I am impressed with the idea that "the main 
thing" with you is, to assist me in selecting your opponent. 

You select your man, I will select mine. Now, if you want to 
debate, cut out word-splitting and juggling of words. 

Shall I go ahead and outline the plan and subjects of debate, 
or do you care to submit an outline? Tentative, of course. 

Respectfully, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

Augusta, Ga., Dec. 14, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 

American National Bank Building, 
Macon, Ga. 
Dear Sir : Your letter of Dec. 9, in reference to debate, is only 
going back over covered ground. 

You issued the challenge for the debate, you outlined the sub- 
ject-matter, you included the number of arguments, you picked 
the audience, fixed the place, selected the hall, and suggested the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 361 

time. We did not object to anything. We even agreed to you 
selecting moderators, we agreed to your stenographic reports, 
we agreed to the cost you estimated, we agreed to practically 
everything you mentioned and only requested on your part that 
you name a champion who would represent the non-Catholic 
people in the same way that ours would represent the Catholic 
people. At first you ignored this one request of ours, though we 
told you at the start it was "the main thing." Next, you de- 
murred to it, admitting that you did not represent the non-Cath- 
olic people. Then we agreed to meet a bona fide representative of 
the PROTESTANT people, and told you to name him. Now, you 
refuse to do that, and take refuge in unimportant matters of 
detail. You mention a forfeit of $500 or more; but you put up 
nothing. You speak of a signed contract; but you offer none, 
signed or unsigned. The only thing you say certain is that you 
will not tell us whom you put up as a representative of the Protes- 
tant people of Georgia. You refuse to comply with the one con- 
dition that makes a debate possible, for you know there can not 
be a debate without a debater; and you ought to know there can 
not be a challenge made in good faith by one who purposely con- 
ceals his party, whether through fear, shame or cunning. You 
issued the challenge; but you refuse to make it bona fide. There 
is only one conclusion. But if you wanted to back out, why didn't 
you do it straight and not try to side-step your own franken- 
stein? 

No harm done, however, and no hard feelings, for we realize 
your predicament: The Protestant people of Georgia do not alto- 
gether share you views; so, to relieve the situation, we shall just 
consider no challenge made. Very truly, 

JJF/LH J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

Macon, Ga., Dec. 23, 1917. 
Catholic Laymen's Association, 
Mr. J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 
Augusta, Ga. 
Dear Sir : Answering yours of the 14th inst. : 
First, I wish to say very emphatically that your letter is liter- 
ally "running over" with "half -truths" or erroneous statements: 
you have practically agreed to nothing regarding the debate — 
merely acquiescing in suggestions in the main modifying some of 
your requirements in my efforts to reach an AGREEMENT with 
you, as there can be no debate until an agreement as to details 
exists, and is signed by each party. 

As an American citizen and Protestant, believing from what 
information I have, that the religion of the Roman Catholic 
church is inimical to popular government and institutions as we 
have in America, I challenged you to debate, for general enlight- 
enment, certain politic and civic questions affecting the nation; 
you desired along with this to inject a religious phase, and also 
discuss priestly orders — and in order to give both sides an equal 
right to discuss any phase of the question, I suggested modifying 
the subject, and debate whether or not the Roman Catholic church 



362 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

is a Christian institution. To this, you replied in effect that there 
were other institutions that had a legal right to exist that were 
not Christian ! 

It is useless to thresh over this old ground of secondary pre- 
liminary details : the bald fact remains, that you seem to be domi- 
nated by the fine foreign influence of the Vatican which will not 
allow you to meet these questions in the forum. 

Having issued the challenge, as above stated, the burden of 
meeting you in case of acceptance was on me, to either meet you 
or your representative myself or secure a substitute to do so — a 
matter in which no parliamentary rule can give you a voice, and 
it was sheer presumption on your part to demand the name of the 
one who would meet you. The force of this will dawn on you, 
especially in the light of your letter of the 3d inst., wherein you 
declare: "Now, a public debate in which all of ONE CLASS is 
represented on ONE side and only part of the OTHER class is 
represented on the other ... we hoped . . . that you might be 
able to secure a representative of NON-CATHOLICS to follow 
up your challenge." Speaking for the Catholics, you classify the 
people — there are only TWO classes: Roman Catholic, and non- 
Catholic, which means that to a Roman Catholic all non-Catholics 
look alike — the Jew and Gentile, Greek and barbarian, bond and 
free, the Hottentot and the Mongolian, the Turk and the Red 
Man: all mankind is divided into TWO classes, the Catholics are 
in one boat, and you put all non-Catholics in the other, THERE- 
FORE, this fact being generally understood by non-Catholics, 
you could not refuse to meet ANY person I should select from 
the boat of NON-CATHOLICS without such refusal being ac- 
cepted as an acknowledgment that you are occupying untenable 
ground; having issued the challenge, it was my prerogative, if I 
saw fit, to put up a Hottentot, or a Protestant bishop, if I thought 
either one of them well versed in polemics. 

Your position now, in the eyes of the public, is as that of a 
defendant with a case in court who refuses to appear before the 
tribunal of justice and have the question aired because he could 
not find out who would represent the cause of the complainant! 
In such cases I believe judgment is rendered in favor of the com- 
plainant. 

There can be but one conclusion reached in your refusal to 
debate, and that is that you entertained a wholesome "FEAR" 
of having to meet a man whom you know knows all you know, 
and then some more, and the "shame" of it forced you to resort to 
Jesuitical "cunning" to find a means of escape via the route of 
technicalities. 

From the first stroke of my pen to you in all this matter it has 
been my purpose to secure information or "evidence" if you 
please, proving or disproving allegations for and against your 
church, whether direct or indirect; and from the time you first 
signified a willingness to debate, from your letters I have seen 
the ultimate conclusion — a "back-down" — and just "played" you 
all along to see how you would work out of a tight place. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 363 

Now, that you have declared the debate off, there is "nothing 
before the house" — we are just where we were at first, and I will 
submit a new challenge, tentatively as follows : 

"Resolved, That the Roman Catholic Church IS a Christian In- 
stitution," and give you the affirmative. I will take care of the 
negative. 

Seven topics for debate to be discussed, one each night for seven 
consecutive nights or as close together as may be possible in 
securing hall, said topics to consist of the Seven Sacraments of 
your church. 

Debate to be in City Auditorium, Macon, Ga. (time to be agreed 
upon). 

You and I each to select a moderator, who together shall act as 
master of ceremonies. 

Admission tickets printed covering seating capacity of the hall 
— about 2,000 or 2,300; you to receive one-half of tickets and I 
half, and to insure against either side "packing" the house admit 
only by ticket up to within about fifteen minutes of speaking hour, 
after which, seats to be open to any one who may want them. 

An agreement to be drawn up and executed in triplicate em- 
bodying these stipulations and also demanding each side put up a 
forfeit of $500 against non-appearance, same to be deposited with 
a responsible person or bank, payable to the party who appears 
for debate and is not met by the other party in person or by proxy 
at the appointed time and place, and upon failure to carry out the 
several debates as may be scheduled. Debate to take place at a 
date mutually agreed upon within six months from time agree- 
ment is executed. 

Now, in accordance with you dictum, dividing the people into 
two "classes," I will secure a man or men who is or are recognized 
by NON-CATHOLICS as belonging to our "class"— I will prob- 
ably get Hon. Gilbert O. Nations, Vice-President of the Free Press 
Defense League, to represent the non-Catholics, using as "state's 
evidence" probably Dr. Joe Slattery or Rev. P. A. Seguin, ex- 
priests, as witnesses to verify or deny allegations as may be nec- 
essary; or, in connection with one of these witnesses, may put up 
Dr. A. E. Barnett, Rev. Guy Fitch Phelps, W. C. Bibb, or any 
other man equally accredited by NON-Catholics as being such. 

Shall I proceed to have agreement drawn along the lines as 
above stated? Yours truly, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

Augusta, Ga., Dec. 31, 1917. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, 

American National Bank Building, 
Macon, Ga. 
Dear Sir: Referring to your letter of Dec. 23: 
None of the parties you name, so far as my information goes, 
is a resident of Georgia, and this compels me to ask you point 
blank, do you hold out that the non-Catholic or Protestant citizens 
of Georgia have really given to the non-resident, professional 
propogandists you name, or to anyone of them, the authority to 



364 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

speak for them in the debate you propose, and I shall await this 
information from you before considering your challenge to debate. 

It is not so much a matter of who these persons are — I know 
them by reputation well enough — or of whether a gentleman 
would be unwilling to have his name coupled with theirs in a 
public way; but it is simply a question of their credentials; if 
they have been designated by the non-Catholic or Protestant citi- 
zens of Georgia notwithstanding they are interlopers here, we 
shall upon assurance of this fact, promptly take up your chal- 
lenge to debate. Without this assurance we can have no way 
of knowing that the non-Catholics or Protestants of Georgia 
desire to debate any question with their Catholic citizens. 

And this is the main thing. 

Very truly, 
JJF/LH J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

Macon, Ga., Jan. 6, 1918. 
Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, 
Mr. J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 
Augusta, Ga. 

Dear Sir: Answering yours of Dec. 31, 1917: 

As the parties I named are not residents of Georgia, before con- 
sidering my challenge to debate you demand to know if non- 
Catholics or the Protestant citizens of Georgia have given any 
one of them the authority to speak for them. You ought to know 
that in all matters of this nature neither non-Catholics or Protes- 
tants have to abide by nor consult some one in "Authority," 
neither do they have to run to some one who has been delegated 
with AUTHORITY by some one else, to get the authority to act. 
Here is one of the great fundamental differences between Protes- 
tantism and Romanism, that is, an exercise of an individual, God- 
given mind and conscience as taught by Bible Christianity. 

In raising that issue — the matter of residence — you should re- 
member that the Catholic church is a purely foreign corporation, 
whose interests are managed and looked after by agents who are 
themselves mainly foreigners, all of whom have assumed an oath 
or pledge of allegiance to the foreign, Italian head of the concern, 
under whose rules or laws no priest-agent can really be termed a 
"resident" of any State in the true sense of the word, but merely 
a transient agent whose sojourn in a State is dependent upon his 
activities in behalf of those who gave him the authority to speak 
for them, and not then until his superiors have denned upon what 
and when he may speak 

Furthermore, you have previously admitted that the Roman 
Catholics of Georgia are affiliated with the National Federated 
Catholic Societies, which fact and admission is sufficient to de- 
stroy any geographical line of demarcation you may attempt now 
to draw, showing that whatever may be the will, intention or pur- 
pose of the Vatican all Romanists in America are prepared by 
such federation to act in concert to carry out the same. 

You say "It is not so much a matter of who these persons are 
... or whether a gentleman would be willing to have his name 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 365 

coupled with theirs in a public way; but it is simply a matter of 
their credentials." 

Permit a few observations here: 

The definition of what constitutes a gentleman varies ac- 
cording to the school of thought in which one is trained: some 
hold that no gentleman would use obscene, lascivious language in 
the presence of a woman and, hence, any man who follows the 
law of your church by using ''Saint" Liguori in the confessional 
box with women is no gentleman ; while, on the other hand, others 
would say he is no gentleman who opposes the gentleman in the 
box with women using Liguori's doctrine as the topic of conver- 
sation or consideration — the mere printing a part of which, in 
Latin, came near putting Hon. Thos. E. Watson in the peniten- 
tiary, on the charge of sending obscene matter through the mails 
— a doctrine so obscene that it is said the trial court would not 
permit the charge containing the matter to be spread upon the 
court record. (It would seem to one who has no "credentials" 
that if Uncle Sam considers it a felony to send "St." Liguori 
through the mails in a DEAD tongue, he may "get his back up" 
when he discovers that the same thing is being sent through his 
females by a LIVE tongue.) 

Again, as to the question of their "credentials" you ought not 
to demur on that point, you being estopped by your own division 
of the people into two classes — Catholics and non-Catholics, and 
it is childish on your part to "stall" around on imaginary lines 
of habitat. 

Further, your church asserts it is the custodian of all truth 
with an infallible head directing his many sub-heads, all of whom 
partake of his nature even as he is "Christ veiled in the flesh," as 
was declared by one who was subsequently elected pope ; and if 
your priests, under your pope are as gods among men, and your 
whole outfit claims to be literally following Him whom your pope 
says he holds the place of on earth, the servant being no better 
than his master, you should be like Him whom you say you fol- 
low — Christ — who did not trouble Himself about the "credentials" 
of those who approached Him, whether saint or sinner, man or 
devil; the OPPORTUNITY was all Christ wanted; He did not 
say to the devil, ''You were kicked out of heaven, and unless you 
show your credentials wherein the non-residents of earth as well 
as the inhabitants thereof have given you 'authority' to meet Me, 
I will not discuss matters with you." No, He did not do as you 
are now doing; He took advantage of the opportunity and gave 
mankind some of the greatest religious truths. 

As to MY "credentials" I am a FREE-BORN American citizen, 
a Baptist by selection and choice — these are all the credentials 
and authority an American to the manner born needs as his au- 
thority to challenge anything or anybody that he has reason to 
believe it or they have, are, or would run counter to the PRIN- 
CIPLES of American democracy and institutions. 

Of course, you must not get the idea that you will confer a 
favor on me or others by a debate; the benefit of such would be 



366 The Roman Uatholic Church Challenged 

felt at the polls; if you can maintain certain positions, your cause 
can not suffer; if you can not, that is your misfortune, and the 
voters who hear you will act at the polls in the light as they have 
it : if you are satisfied not to turn on the light, that suits me ; but 
you can not blame non-Catholics for opposing that which seeks to 
keep in the dark. 

Notwithstanding I consider the "main thing" you are demand- 
ing as entirely a non-essential and frivolous, yet to please you, I 
will ask you to divest himself of your equivocal tendencies for 
one time, and answer the following "point blank" as an American 
citizen : 

(1) There are approximately twenty-five Protestant ministers 
in Macon; if the majority of them should say they are willing for 
any one of the parties I may name to speak for Protestantism of 
Georgia, would this satisfy you? 

(2) If not, would you be satisfied if the leaders of the several 
denominations — bishop, president, moderator, etc. — should say 
they are satisfied with my selection? 

(3) Do you expect me to put the matter up to the thousand or 
more preachers in Georgia and ask them to bring it to a vote by 
their respective congregations? 

(4) What man or men in Georgia among non-church people 
would you have me submit the proposition to for ratification? 

(5) Do you think a man who would be acceptable to you would 
be fully qualified to speak for non-Catholics? 

Awaiting your reply, I am, 

Respectfully yours, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

Augusta, Ga., Jan. 25, 1918. 
Mr. C. A. Yarbrough, D. D. S., 

American National Bank Building, 
Macon, Ga. 

Dear Sir : Noting your letter of Jan. 6 : 

You asked me several questions; why did you not answer the 
one I asked, and either say that your "debaters" had the author- 
ity to represent the Prostestant people of Georgia or admit they 
had not and you had proposed them without authority? 

No, I do not expect you to put the matter up to the Protestant 
congregations; I do not expect you to do anyhing; but your ques- 
tion here shows that you have a very keen appreciation of what 
ought to be done ; of what, in fact, most persons, with a becoming 
sense of modesty, would have wished done before they presumed 
so far as to speak in the name of the non-Catholic people, espe- 
cially the Protestant people. 

And while I did not exactly expect it, I did hope, for a little 
while, till you began to clutter around so much, that something 
like this, if it had not been, would be done ; for, as a casual reader 
could see from the very beginning, I consider it the main thing, 
not only because it barred any personal exploitation of irrespon- 
sible individuals, but also, because it frustrated all self-serving 
projects. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 367 

If you have been disappointed, you should not abuse us for it, 
and now that you seem finally to have absorbed the idea, it is up 
to you, in expressive parlance, to put up or shut up. 

Very truly, 

J. J. Farrell, Mgr. 

Macon, Ga., Feb. 4, 1918. 
Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, 
Mr. J. J. Farrell, Mgr., 
Augusta, Ga. 

Dear Sir: Replying to yours of the 25th ult., and terminating 
the question of debate : 

You did not answer the point blank questions asked you, but 
again raised instead the matter of my "authority," which was 
clearly disposed of in my last letter. 

At the beginning, I agreed to provide a hall for the debate, and 
give you an audience composed of those people in the main you 
have so assiduously circularized — people too intelligent to ques- 
tion any matter pertaining to arrangements for debate, being 
interested only in the subjects thereof. 

An answer to one or all of my five questions was necessary, 
before I could definitely reply to your hypermetric "main thing." 
While not specifically answering any of the questions, your highly 
developed sense of "modesty" (?) prompted you, however, to con- 
vey a broad hint probably as an answer to Question 3 — which, most 
assuredly later, requirements would be extended, judging from 
past experience, requiring each individual signature to be con- 
firmed by notary's seal. I would be pleased, though, to take up 
this task (merely to satisfy you) if I possessed the patience of 
Job, could stay Time in its flight, had at my command the re- 
sources of the United States with the facilities of the Census 
Bureau, and KNEW you would get Benedict XV as your cham- 
pion to speak for the Romanists of Georgia. 

In the correspondence as to debate, you have furnished both 
enlightenment and amusement: your seeming desire to take up 
the gauntlet thrown down by me, reveals the fundamental duplic- 
ity inculcated by your system of religion, while it has been ludi- 
crous to observe how you could not get to it from stumbling over 
technicalities ! Therefore, will close the subject with the follow- 
ing pertinent statements: 

You refuse to debate, advancing the specious plea that I have no 
"authority" to challenge you or put up a man to debate, while at 
the same time you know, as well as I know you know I know, that 
if I had a power of attorney duly executed by every non-Catholic in. 
the State of Georgia authorizing me to select a man for the above 
stated purpose, YOU WOULD NOT, NEITHER COULD YOU, 
meet him in debate on the issues submitted for debate ; very em- 
phatically did your infallible pope, Leo XIII, say, in his Encycli- 
cal Letters (p. 133) : "In mere matters of OPINION it is per- 
missible to discuss things," while as to LIBERTY of SPEECH 
that would be necessary in a DEBATE, he said(p.l51) : "THERE 



368 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

IS NO SUCH RIGHT," while another of your infallible popes 
estops all subjects of the papal church from debating: in his 
Motu Proprio orders, Pius X, Sept. 10, 1910, forbids even priests 
of the Roman church to congregate for the purpose of discussing 
questions of modernism, presbyterianism, or laicism. This I knew 
when you first acted as if you wanted to take up my challenge; 
I knew that if the priests of Rome could not even enter into dis- 
cussions they COULD NOT DEBATE where the public at large 
and possibly papal subjects (a term used by Leo XIII in refer- 
ence to Romanists) would form the audience; but I did hope you 
had absorbed enough of the spirit of Americanism to cause you, 
for once at least, to defy your RELIGIOUS SUPERIORS— in 
this only am I disappointed. 

You would make it obligatory on me, and as a condition prece- 
dent, to get the authority or endorsement of all Protestants of 
Georgia before going into a debate, while on your part you would 
PRESUME to put up a man to speak for the Catholics of Geor- 
gia: from whom would he get HIS authority; certainly not from 
a practical referendum such as you would burden me with, but 
he would get it through a long chain of "religious superiors" 
from the POPE— from ONE MAN (if such was secured at all) : 
so you will see at once, I as one man have as much right and au- 
thority in the premises as you have; this is so apparent, I do not 
see how you could have overlooked it all the way along. But to 
test the abject subserviency of papal subjects to their foreign 
head the pope (a sort of Religious Kaiser in the Vatican) copies 
of the original questions were mailed to Mr. A. J. Long, this city 
(the present presiding officer of your association), and to Hon. 
A. D. Daly — two prominent Roman Catholics; the foreign papal 
laws prevented them from attempting an answer, and our debate- 
correspondence has been very illuminating, showing the influence 
of the above cited papal orders on individuals as well as associa- 
tions. 

Personally wishing you and all Roman Catholics well, and as 
to debate : ne plus, I am, 

Respectfully, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

I believe the above letters will convince any one that the Lay- 
men's Association did not have the remotest intention to debate 
the questions proposed, from considering the sophisticated reason 
advanced as "the main thing," unless they were satisfied my selec- 
tion was unlearned in Jesuitical casuistry, in which case a dis- 
pensation to debate could have been secured, and they would have 
entered into it with unbounded pleasure; for, always, "The end 
justifies the means"; the manner in which Mr. Farrell treated 
the various subjects discussed herein shows how Rome trains her 
clerics in subtleness, especially when dealing with "heretics" — all 
apt pupils of Talleyrand, one of Rome's greatest French bishops, 
who said "Language is the art of concealing one's thoughts." 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 369 

If any doubt remained as to the sincerity of the Laymen's Asso- 
ciation, the following, quoted from the Canon Law of the church 
of Rome would dispel it. This law was discovered subsequent 
to the above letter, which reads, under the heading of "Heretics": 

"Public disputes with heretics on matters de fide (of faith) is 
forbidden under excommunication sententiae ferendae" which 
means, "Let the transgressor be excommunicated." 

The evidence is conclusive that the "main thing" which pre- 
vented the association from debating was the above law, and not 
a question as to my "authority" in issuing the challenge, or the 
"credentials" of the man I should choose to meet them; the iron 
grip of the LAW held the conscience bound in this as in all things 
that pertain to faith and morals, and faith and morals encompass 
the soul through life as water surrounds an island. 

While I knew it was impossible for Rome to meet her doctrines 
and laws and defend them on the rostrum before the people, I did 
not know at the time of the above correspondence that such had 
been legislated against. From reading all the letters, it will be 
seen that the Decree of the Council of Constance, "Keep no faith 
with heretics," is a principle as vital to the Roman Catholic sys- 
tem to-day as when it was first promulgated. 

In his letter of September 20, 1917, Mr. Farrell says: "Most 
all you say has been argued to us in much the same way by other 
correspondents." Did he answer "in much the same way" as he 
did mine? 

If what they said was similar to what I wrote, then there was 
a "poison stream" running through their papers, which shows 
that all who investigate this subject are suspicious of Italian 
popery; he says also that my paper "furnished a helpful index to 
the non-Catholic mind," which was my object in the beginning: 
an honest statement, so he would understand the reason for this 
"suspicion" and on his part furnish a remedy by explaining or 
proving this suspicion to be unfounded. Has he been as honest 
with me as he says I have been with him? 

My questions were presented twice for review by him; they 
showed the cause of my suspicion and distrust of Catholicism, and 
although his association was organized ostensibly for the sole 
purpose of answering questions as to the faith, practice and 
rights claimed by Catholics, he has not treated any one of the 
questions of moment in a way to dissipate suspicion; would it be 
presumptuous to say HE COULD NOT? And if that be true, 
what is the object of his association, if not to keep people from 
learning what the pope teaches? 



370 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

MISCELLANEOUS 



PAPAL "ARGUMENT"— FIRE 

In 1914, the Rev. T. F. Callaway delivered a series of sermons 
on political Romanism in his church, the Baptist Tabernacle. He 
received the following letter from one "John J. McCreary," which 
I will present, paragraph at a time, with comments: 

"Macon, Ga., July 14, 1914. 
"Rev. T. F. Callaway, Macon, Ga. 

"Dear Mr. Callaway : I have had the extreme pleasure of hear- 
ing three of your sermons against Catholicism, and beg to call 
attention to a few 'errors' you have made in your addresses. I 
feel sure that you will rectify same after they have been refuted 
to your entire satisfaction. I am sending you, under separate 
cover, this month's issue of TRUTH, and would thank you to 
refer to the passages I have marked, and which will discuss these 
misstatements." 

Comment: Mr. McCreary sent Mr. Callaway a marked copy 
of Truth, instead of pointing out by argument the "errors" him- 
self — I just wonder if this Truth is the organ of the Catholic 
Truth Society, of which Jeremiah O'Leary was president, who is 
to be tried for conspiracy against this Government in favor of 
Germany during the Great War? 

"You made a mistake in saying that the Catholic church op- 
posed the public schools on account of the parochial schools. This 
question is answered on page 35 under the title 'Catholic Oppo- 
sition to Godless Schools,' and there you will find the true ex- 
planation of the matter." 

Comment: I do not know what Mr. Callaway charged — but 
whatever it was, was "answered on page 35 . . ." A priest- 
editor can solve any question to the entire satisfaction of a Ro- 
manist; I do not know what "page 35" contained, but I do know 
that because Rome is not permitted to teach "The Glories of 
Mary" in the public schools, she sets up her own parochial 
schools, and says all others are "godless" and tries to fill them 
up with her teachers to rectify this "error." This principle was 
at the bottom of the Great War's beginning. 

"In your attack on the Jesuits, you made a statement to the 
effect that their motto was The End Justifies the Means.' Per- 
haps you don't know, Mr. Callaway, that this calumny is nearly 
as old as the Jesuit order itself, and has been refuted time and 
time again. If you have means of proving this statement, you 
stand in line for a snug fortune. Of course, it must be earned. 
By referring to the article on page 33 you will find that you are 
not the only original calumniator, and that smarter men than you 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 371 

have been made to eat their words. Therefore, my dear Mr. Calla- 
way, it would behoove you to swallow soft words rather than 
hard, so please govern yourself accordingly." 

Comment: From time to time elsewhere I have treated the 
"motto" referred to, and believe the truth of the matter has been 
made clear except to those who look to the priest for an answer, 
as did Mc. One thing is sure — Mc is not a Jesuit — else he would 
have been too wise to have signed his letter — and therefore he 
does not know anything about the Jesuit order except such as he 
learned from members of it ! I venture to say Mc has never read 
how Jesuits disguised themselves as heathen priests in order to 
fool the native pagans so as to get a chance to baptize some of 
them, acting on the theory that "The End Justifies the Means." 

He stated a truth, though, when he said that "smarter men 
than you have been made to swallow their words" — was he think- 
ing of Galileo, Bruno, Savonarola, Huss, Wycliffe, the many mil- 
lions who were murdered by Rome's Inquisition, in efforts to make 
THEM swallow popery ! But how was Mr. Callaway to be made 
to swallow his words, and by whom, by a priest or layman in joint 
debate on the subjects, or by boycott or Inquisition? Why does 
papalism always strive to make one swallow his words, instead 
of answering them? Is that why the Catholic Laymen's Associa- 
tion of Georgia failed to answer any of the important questions 
I put to them? 

"You also dwelt a long time upon discussing the relative rights 
of Church and State, and said that some clergyman had said that 
the 'Government of the United States could go to hell,' which you 
said was a very popular and 'favorite expression of Romanists.' 
Please understand, my dear sir, that you have no right to render 
the Catholic church accountable for the actions of its members, 
than we have to blame the Baptist church for the deeds of every 
notoriety-seeking minister who chooses to attack the Catholic 
church in a fit of bad temper. You will find this subject disucssed 
on page 32 of the magazine I am sending you." 

Comment : The spirit that actuates every priest of Rome — and 
the spirit that actuates every member of the pope's church — is 
to be found in the laws and doctrines of that institution; Priest 
Phelan's "To Hell with the Government of the United States" 
was a reflection from the papal law, while McCreary's letter is 
a reflection of the papal spirit derived from the priest: a Roman- 
ist being governed by the pope through the priest can not answer 
any question, but what he does is based on what some priest has 
said or written — note how often he refers to some page of Truth, 
while the general tone of his letter is as that of the system under 
which he lives — Mc is a member of the ''Hearing Church" who 
knows nothing except what the "Teaching Church," the pope, 
wants him to know. 



372 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

"According to your claim, Mr. Callaway, the Catholic church 
does not recognize the second commandment of God. According 
to your actions, sir, the Baptist church does not observe the 
eighth. As I said before, however, we will not judge the Baptist 
church by the actions of its irresponsible ministers, so we will not 
discuss the matter longer. But, my dear sir, you are playing with 
fire, and you may be seriously burned before you have finished 
your childish prank. Suits for libel are still tried, you know." 

Comment : The only point worth noticing in this paragraph is 
the threat that Mr. Callaway may be "seriously burned before" 
he has finished his "childish prank." As an "irresponsible" per- 
son playing a "childish prank" can never be the basis of a suit in 
court for libel, and as no one can be "seriously burned" in such 
suits, Mr. Mc should not complain if this threat is interpreted 
according to the laws and history of his church, from which that 
spirit is engenedered and put in action, which burnt and roasted 
human beings, not to make them swallow "hard words" but 
"HARD DOCTRINES"; and the general tenor of this letter 
shows Mr. Mc to be a true child of his church — an institution that 
has the right according to its laws to roast Mr. Callaway for ob- 
jecting to the encroachments of Political Romanism on the free 
institutions and rights of a free people, in her efforts to get that 
power which would enable her to force him to call on Mary for 
salvation — and other things. I am informed that Mr. Callaway's 
deacons were approached on the subject, to have him suppressed 
in his own pulpit. How does this comport with Farrell's asser- 
tion that Catholics would pay no attention to the pope if he were 
to interfere with our Constitution, and that Romanists in this 
country were opposed to union of Church and State? 

"Too bad the newspapers don't give you some publicity through 
their columns, isn't it? Self-respecting papers care too much for 
their reputations to dirty their pages by such filth. Perhaps Tom 
Watson would do so, as he runs one of the other kind. So you 
can't get notoriety except at advertising rates. 'Awful, aint't it?' " 

Comment: There are few, if any, preachers or speakers in 
America who could get the newspapers to print the facts relative 
to Romanism; if they should expound the Marriage Law of the 
Council of Trent, which declares that marriage is not valid unless 
contracted with the presence of a papal priest, which Leo XIII 
paraphrased by saying such marriage is only "legalized concu- 
binage," ''filthy concubinage," etc., and even if the editor was not 
married according to papal law, he would not give such sermons 
or addresses much space. 

Should a preacher expound the laws of papalism which show 
that a Romanist can not be true to this Government and his 
church, newspapers would not print it as a rule, not because they 
"care too much for their reputations to dirty their pages by such 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 373 

filth," but because they know Rome perhaps as no other set of 
men know her! They know that this political machine has a 
clipping bureau in America, the sole purpose of which is to scan 
every page of every paper, and set the papal Inquisition in action 
against editors in such cases. That such bureau exists in Georgia 
I assert, and defy any Romanist in the State to deny it! Does 
Mc know of this bureau? 

As to Tom Watson: he published in his magazine, in Latin, 
several pages of Liguori's and Dens' "Moral Theology" and other 
doctrines of Rome's "holy fathers" that are used in the confes- 
sional with women and girls, and the papal element had the 
United States Government prosecute him five years in an unsuc- 
cessful effort to send him to the pen. for ''SENDING OBSCENE 
MATTER THROUGH THE MAILS." Yes, Tom Watson will 
print what the newspapers will not — because many of them are 
controlled or muzzled by the boycott. 

Is the bishop's oath "filthy"? According to Mc it must be, as 
no one has ever seen it in the columns of the press ; neither will 
it ever get in the newspapers except at ad. rates. 

If certain things do not get in the papers because they are 
"filth," then the bishop's oath, the doctrine of Aquinas, Liguori, 
Dens, and others must be an aggregation of "filth" as they never 
get in the press, and even the Roman Catholic press will not ad- 
mit the oath and the like to its columns! How about it, Mc? 
Have you ever seen that oath in your Sunday Visitor or other 
papal sheet? 

If "John J. McCreary" can disprove the bishop's oath, I will 
give him $1,000; that's a "snug" sum, Mc; it's yours — but you 
must earn it by proving the oath untrue before the people of 
Macon in the City Auditorium assembled ; Mc should also capture 
that $5,000, as he has so much information and is so well versed 
in things papal as to command a Protestant minister to COR- 
RECT HIS "ERRORS." If the Honorable John J. McCreary, 
an attorney at law, makes no effort to win this case, papists 
should not blame the people for believing the oath is so true and 
filthy to Americans that even a lawyer will not accept the case, 
even at "lawyer's rates!" (Because he can not disprove it.) 
Think it over, Mc, and as you walk the streets of Macon, and as 
the others subject thereto go in and out among true Americans, 
they will say in their hearts, "THERE GOES ONE WHO IS 
SWORN TO PERSECUTE AND FIGHT ME!" Better make 
some effort to win that money, Mc. ! 

"Now, Mr. Callaway, before you rave and rant any more about 
lack of patriotism of Catholics, and that 'The Government of the 
United States can go to Hell,' suppose you read up and find out 
how many Catholics fell at Vera Cruz, and what proportion they 
were to the total number of casualties. It would also benefit you 



374 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

to read some church history, and thereby find that there never 
has been any 'Pius XI\" 

Comment: I have read the history of papists by papists in the 
Great War — it must be true, being written by priest-editors, that 
Romanists had the greater number of boys in the ranks than all 
the others combined: that although there are only one Roman 
Catholic to every six people in this country, in some manner in 
the draft more Catholics were conscripted that others; of course 
it is an easy matter for a priest to explain how one-sixth papal 
population could under the Draft Act furnish more men than the 
other five-sixths ! "Two plus two equals four," you know — if the 
pope's priest said a thing is true, it is true, and to a Romanist it 
becomes a "closed" subject! In the matter of Pius' number, Mc 
did point out an error ! 

"I trust, sir, that you will accept this in the spirit in which it 
is offered, and, as I said before, rectify the errors. I am, sir, 
"Yours for fair play, 

"John J. McCreary, L. H. S." 

Comment: "Fair play," what does a Romanist consider fair 
play? To hand you the "TRUTH" as defined by a pope or priest, 
and threaten to make you swallow hard words or be burned if 
you refuse to believe it? To an American, "fair play" means, let 
each side be heard, and any public non-Catholic speaker will 
divide time with any priest or layman who desires fair play for 
the discussion of any issue of law presented in this book; but this 
interpretation of fair play is the one thing Rome fears more than 
any other. 

Mr. McCreary says the Roman church should not be held re- 
sponsible for the acts of its members; NO? WHY? One govern- 
ment holds another responsible for the acts of its subjects: the 
Roman church claims to be an independent society or state or 
government, "chartered as of right divine" with the right to pro- 
tect herself according to her own laws — and the only way she 
strives to protect herself from destruction is, to prevent those 
on the outside from knowing what she stands for, even using 
"FIRE" and sword to prevent criticism; and every priest and 
layman of that institution being its subjects, what they say or do 
will be charged against the system from which they receive their 
inspiration. This is also fair. 

Here is another letter written about two years later. It is 
copied just as written; the effort to disguise the handwriting is 
very good, but does not conceal the fact that it is the work of a 
well-trained penman; the spelling, punctuation, capitalization, 
etc., show a studied effort to appear illiterate, but one who can 
write such a hand, and use the word "literature" is well up in 
things Catholic: 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 375 

"Macon ga Aug 4th, 1916. 
"Dear Mrs Callaway 

"Why can you not persuade your husband not to take part in 
the Guardians banquet on the 7th inst it will mean a lot of sor- 
row and trouble, do you know the roman catholics have over 3,000 
(three thousand) right here in our city? Why what is he — Glynn 
or any one else thinking of to attack them at a time like this? 
further more I have been married to a catholic man for 16 years, 
and never hear him or any other one make an attack on protes- 
tantism, they only pray for us, I am a methodist and am going 
to write to Bro. Glynn in regards to the matter I think we have 
war close enough, (in Mexico) the catholic prays for peace and 
it seems as if the ministers pray's for and advocates war, I am 
thoroughly disgusted with protestant faith, stop and ask your- 
self, where is and in what church is the right religion as old John, 
R, says the catholic has its first time to scandilize they pray for 
their enemy show me where your preachers pray for anything 
but trouble. Where is their Christianity they will be like old man 
Huff a staunch Guardian go to hell faster than the Dixie Flyer 
can carry him to Hawkinsville, bear in mind they better go slow. 
Why not read catholic literature? they have no secrets and why 
do your husband and others accuse them of things they are not 
guilty of? Who keeps up the door of hope? Who keeps up all of 
the low down places, it is not the catholics or for catholic women 
take my advice and tell him to stay out See?" 

This epistle was received by Mrs. Callaway a few days prior to 
the banquet and speaking by the Guardians of Liberty, at which 
time Mr. Callaway and Dr. J. M. Glenn, Presiding Elder of this 
district, among others, were to speak. 

As this letter speaks for itself, no comment is necessary — I will 
dwell a few moments on the question of history, when written by 
Catholics : the writer of this letter who failed to sign her name, 
intimates that among the soldiers at Camp Harris at that time, 
there were 3,000 Roman Catholics, who were likely to cause sor- 
row and trouble : now there were about 5,000 men in all out there 
according to my recollection — all of them Georgia boys; and as 
there is only ONE Roman Catholic to every one hundred non- 
Catholics in Georgia, it is certainly wonderful how there were 
3,000 Romanists among them! 

the Mccreary letters 

On November 3, 1919, the following notice appeared in The 
Macon Telegraph: 

"At a meeting of the Catholics of Macon held in the Knights of 
Columbus Hall last night the Catholic Laymen's Association of 
Macon was formed with the following officers: M. J. Callaghan, 
president; Miss Amelia Home, first vice-president; Dan Horgan, 
second vice-president; Mrs. W. D. Wills, third vice-president; 
J. J. McCreary, fourth vice-president; J. E. Morgan, secretary, 



376 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

and H. M. Sowers, assistant secretary. Executive committee: 
W. H. Mitchell, chairman, A. J. Long, T. F. Sheridan, Mrs. Cecil 
Morgan, Miss Annie McKervey. Frank Donnelly was chosen 
treasurer. 

Bishop B. J. Keiley was present and addressed the meeting at 
the close, speaking warmly of the good work done by the State 
association in removing prejudice and spreading correct informa- 
tion about Catholics. Other speakers were P. H. Rice, of Au- 
gusta, who is State president; J. J. Farrell and Miss H. H. Hynes, 
of the publicity committee ; J. J, Haverty, of Atlanta, vice-presi- 
dent; J. J. McCallum, State secretary, Atlanta; Peter F. Clarke, 
president of the Atlanta association; Rev. Fr. Wilkinson, the new 
pastor of St. Joseph's, and Ed Sheridan of Macon." 

Observing that "J. J. McCreary" was an officer in the local asso- 
ciation, I wrote him : 

Macon, Ga., Dec. 6, 1919. 
Mr. J. J. McCreary, 
Attorney at Law, 
Macon, Ga. 
My Dear Sir : In the columns of the press I noticed your name 
among the officers of the recently-formed Catholic Laymen's 
Association of Macon. 

I am submitting herewith a copy of an oath contained in a 
pamphlet which alleges it to be the oath of a Roman Catholic 
bishop. 

I would thank you to state whether or not it is the true, com- 
plete oath of the bishop of the Roman church. If not, kindly fur- 
nish me a transcript. 

Thanking you for your attention, I am, 

Very truly yours, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

ALLEGED CATHOLIC BISHOP'S OATH 

"I, , elected to the Church of N., from this hour hence- 
forward will be obedient to Blessed Peter the Apostle, and to the 
holy Roman Church, and to our Holy Father, Pope N., and to his 
successors canonically elected. I will assist them to retain and 
to defend the Roman Papacy without detriment to my order. I 
shall take care to preserve, to defend, increase and promote the 
rights, honors, privileges and authority of the holy Roman Church 
of our Lord the Pope, and of his aforesaid successors. I shall ob- 
serve with all my strength, and shall cause to be observed by 
others, the rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolic decrees, ordi- 
nances or dispositions, reservations, provisions and mandates. I 
shall come when called to a Synod, unless prevented by a canoni- 
cal impediment. I shall make personally the visit ad limina apos- 
tolorum every ten years, and I shall render to our Holy Father, 
Pope P., and to his aforesaid successors an account of my whole 
pastoral office, and of all things pertaining in any manner what- 
soever to the state of my church, to the discipline of the clergy 
and the people, and finally to the salvation of the souls entrusted 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 377 

to me : and in turn I shall receive humbly the apostolic mandates 
and execute them as diligently as possible. But if I shall be de- 
tained by legitimate impediment, I shall fulfill all the aforesaid 
things through a designated delegate having a special mandate 
for this purpose, a priest of my diocese, or through some other 
secular or regular priest of known probity and religion, fully in- 
formed concerning the above-named things. I shall not sell, nor 
give, nor mortgage the possessions belonging to my mensa, nor 
shall enfeoff them anew or alienate them in any manner, even 
with the consent of the chapter of my Church, without consulting 
the Roman Pontiff. And if through me such alienation shall occur, 
I wish, by the very fact, to incur the punishment contained in the 
constitution concerning this matter. 

"So help me God and these Holy Gospels of God." 



John J. McCreary 

MACON, GA. 

December 9, 1919. 
Dr. C. A. Yarbrough, Macon, Ga. 

Dear Dr. Yarbrough : This morning I have your favor of the 
6th inclosing copy of an oath contained in a pamphlet which 
alleges it to be the oath of a Catholic bishop. 

I regret that I am not in a position at present to enlighten you 
in regard to this matter, but am to-day making inquiries and hope 
before long to be able to give you authentic information in con- 
nection with what you seek. 

I am glad to see you avail yourself of the service afforded by 
the Catholic Laymen's Association, and hope you will consult us 
at any time you may desire information regarding the tenets and 
practices of our faith. 

With personal regards, I am, 

Very sincerely yours, 

John J. McCreary. 



Macon, Ga., Dec. 19, 1919. 
Dr. C. A. Yarbrough, Macon, Ga. 

Dear Dr. Yarbrough: With further reference to your inquiry 
of December 6. 

I have located in the "Pontificate Romanum" published by Ben- 
ziger Brothers and by Fr. Pustet, Publishers, of New York, the 
real obligation taken by bishops of our church at their consecra- 
tion. I am having a copy made and will forward it to you in a 
very short while. The "Pontificale Romanum" is on sale by the 
above publishers. 

This letter is to let you know that you have not been forgotten. 

Wishing you a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New 
Year, believe me to be, 

Very sincerely yours, 

John J. McCreary. 



378 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Macon, Ga., Dec. 30, 1919. 
Dr. C. A. Yarbrough, Macon, Ga. 

Dear Dr. Yarbrough : With further reference to your inquiry 
regarding the oath alleged to be taken by bishops of the Catholic 
church on the occasion of their consecration. 

I am advised by the Director of the Publicity Department, 
Catholic Laymen's Association of Georgia, whose office is at No. 
107 Ninth Street, Augusta, Ga., that he has investigated the sub- 
ject about which you wrote and has almost completed his research. 

Due to the fact that my library is not very extensive and this 
Publicity Department has more adequate facilities for making 
investigations of this kind, I forwarded your inquiry some time 
ago to Mr. J. J. Farrell, Director of the Publicity Department, 
with the request that he give it attention. I was promped in this 
by your reference in your first letter to the fact that I held an 
office in the local association. 

I suggest that you anticipate Mr. Farrell's completion of his 
research by writing him direct and asking him to advise you the 
result of his study as soon as he has it in final shape. This will 
enable you to get the desired information without the delay occa- 
sioned by using me as an intermediary. I want to assure you that 
Mr. Farrell and his assistants are always willing and eager to 
answer any sincere questioner about matters concerning our 
faith, and I'm sure that you will obtain satisfactory service from 
this Publicity Department. 

I trust that you had a most enjoyable Christmas season, and 
that the coming year will bring to you the realization of your 
fondest hopes and desires. 

Cordially yours, 

John J. McCreary. 



Macon, Ga., Jan. 3, 1920. 
Mr. John J. McCreary, 
Attorney at Law, 
Macon, Ga. 

Dear Mr. McCreary: Your favor of the 30th ult. to hand. 

In your communication of December 9, 1919, you expressed 
pleasure that I had availed myself of "the service of the Catholic 
Laymen's Association," and requested me to consult you at any 
time I desired "information regarding the tenets and practices" 
of your faith; in your letter of the 19th ult. you said: 

"I have located . . . the real obligation taken by bishops of our 
church at their consecration. I am having a copy made and will 
forward it to you in a very short while." 

In view of that statement, and promise, I could not be inter- 
ested in the result of a research conducted by any party in an- 
other city ; and I fail to grasp the import of your reference to the 
extent of your library. 

I sent you copy of an oath alleged to be that taken by Catholic 
bishops, and simply asked you to state whether or not it was true, 
and if not, to furnish me with a correct copy; you advised that 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 379 

you were having a copy of it made which you would send in a 
short while; just why you ask for a "change of venue" after the 
evidence is all in pertaining to the "case" placed in your hands, 
of course, is not exactly clear to me. 

I applied to you for information, because of the fact you are 
not only a member of the Catholic church, but also an officer in 
an association formed, as advertised, for the purpose of giving 
information to inquirers concerning Catholicism. I have no ob- 
jection to your securing assistance in the "case" from whatever 
source you may choose, if you deem it necessary after admitting 
you were in possession of the desired information; but I prefer 
not to take the matter up with any other parties, and trust this 
will be satisfactory to you. As to delay, a week more or less will 
not make any difference. 

Very truly yours, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 



Macon, Ga., Jan. 24, 1920. 
Dr. C. A. Yarbrough, Macon, Ga. 

Dear Dr. Yarbrough: Your letter of January 3 is received. 

After writing you as in mine of December 9, 1919, promising 
later to forward you "the real obligation" taken by Catholic 
bishops, and thereby implying that the purported copy of the 
"alleged oath" which you sent me was not, at least in every par- 
ticular a true and exact copy, I was informed that you had pre- 
viously been in correspondence with Mr. Farrell, who has charge 
of the Publicity Bureau of our Laymen's Association. The cir- 
cumstances of your correspondence with him, as related to me, 
prompted me, both out of courtesy due our Association as such 
and as a matter of straightforward dealing, to refer you to Mr. 
Farrell as in my letter of December 30th last. 

Presuming my information to be correct, it appears that you 
previously asked Mr. Farrell a number of questions and later, 
in objection to the answers he made, wrote him a voluminous 
letter which he undertook to answer in piecemeal, as it were, 
sending you separate letters dealing with the separate points of 
your objections; that before he had concluded his letters to you, 
notwithstanding they were uniformly courteous, brief and to the 
point, you stopped the matter, returned his letter unopened and 
marked so as to indicate you would not receive any more. 

It appears, also, that during the course of this correspondence 
you published detached portions of it in a leaflet which you sent 
broadcast through the mail, and on Mr. Farrell's asking that you 
and he jointly publish the whole correspondence, or such parts 
of it as you jointly agreed on, sharing the expense equally, you 
would not reply, although it is difficult to see how this fair prop- 
osition could be ignored by any one wishing at all cost to be fair. 

Apart from any question that these circumstances naturally 
inject into your motives in now addressing an inquiry to one who 
is merely an officer in the Association, instead of to the Publicity 
Bureau whose business is to answer questions, the fact that you 



380 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

originally approached Mr. Farrell on various matters, and that 
his office still is the advertised source of information to all in- 
quirers in Georgia concerning Catholicity, makes me feel that 
you cannot object, if you really desire to know the truth about 
the obligation that Catholic bishops take, to addressing your 
inquiry to him. 

Indeed, I should think that you, more than any one, would be 
anxious in this way to anticipate any possible suspicion arising 
in the minds of those to whom you intend to exhibit your corre- 
spondence, as to your open and disinterested purpose of seeking 
true information from first-hand sources in respect to the 
premises. 

I hope, therefore, you will write Mr. Farrell, who will, I am 
sure, promptly give you the information desired. 
Very truly yours, 

John J. McCreary. 

Mr. John J. McCreary, Macon, Ga., Feb. 2, 1920. 

Attorney at Law, 
Macon, Ga. 
My Dear Mr. McCreary: Referring to your favor of 24th ult. : 
Your reasons assigned for referring me to your Mr. Farrell 
are noted. 

In the second paragraph of your letter you say you have 
learned that I had previously asked questions of Mr. Farrell, but 
"that before he had conclued his letters to you, notwithstanding 
they were uniformly courteous, brief and to the point, you stopped 
the matter, returned his letter unopened and marked so as to in- 
dicate you would not receive any more." 

In the third paragraph you say "it is difficult to see how this 
fair proposition could be ignored by any one wishing at all to be 
fair." 

In four you say that if I "really desire to know the truth about 
the obligation that Catholic bishops take," you could see no reason 
why I should not address my inquiry to Mr. Farrell, as you sug- 
gest- 
In a letter from your Mr. Farrell, dated Dec. 1, 1917, are these 
words: "This will conclude my comments on your long letter, 
except as to the debate and as to the publication of our exchanges, 
and saving the matter of the folder about which I wrote"; ap- 
proximately two months passed, devoted to correspondence re- 
garding the debate, which contained no intimation that he desired 
to reopen comments upon my long letter, and in concluding his 
letter of January 25, 1918, subject of debate, he said it was up to 
me "to put up or shut up" — I acknowledged its receipt, and agreed 
to "shut up." 

Yes, I had considerable correspondence with your "Publicity 
Bureau"; my experience with you and the Catholic Laymen's 
Association of Georgia was a parallel, substitution of technicali- 
ties for truth — and you know as a lawyer that where a case is 
decided on that principle, Truth and Justice weep ! 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 381 

Mr. Farrell having voluntarily terminated his letters com- 
menting on mine, and subsequently requesting me to "put up or 
shut up" as to debate, can you possibly consider me unfair for 
having returned unopened another letter bearing request of that 
association, across which was written: "As to debate, ne plus"? 

Just what other reasons why I would not let him waste more 
of his valuable time with me is not pertinent; if so inclined you 
may draw your own conclusions; but your fifth paragraph calls 
for consideration: After reviewing our correspondence fully, are 
you prepared to state that your letters would tend "to anticipate 
any possible suspicion in the minds of those" who may be inter- 
ested in the subject of the bishop's oath? In a letter from Mr. 
A. J. Long, in regard to getting information "first-hand," he said 
that "every Catholic will welcome and assist you any way you 
may desire." 

In seeking information, I have followed the general rules of 
our courts: putting up such witnesses as I thought were in pos- 
session of the facts in the case ; before you were called to testify, 
I had your "Publicity Bureau" on the stand. While on the stand 
did you verify Mr. Long's assertion? I think not, but like him, 
indeed, you seemed determined to make me secure information, 
if at all, second-hand in referring to others ! Such information, 
as you know, would not then be "true information from first-hand 
sources in respect to the premises." 

As an American citizen I asked you, as another, a plain ques- 
tion relating to the tenets and practices of an institution to 
which you belong; instead of answering, you referred me to an- 
other body, knowing at the time that there had been a "breach" 
severing "diplomatic" relations between us; so, under these cir- 
cumstances, "I should think that you, more than any one, would 
be anxious in this way to anticipate any possible suspicion," if 
the ostensible purpose of said association is to really give infor- 
mation, by seeing to it that my question to you had a prompt, 
correct answer. 

There may be binding rules and regulations within your insti- 
tution governing the modus operandi in all these things; but you 
know I am not subject to nor bound thereby, recognizing that 
rule only which should govern and establish truth among men 
generally ; therefore, in this matter I reserved the right as inves- 
tigator to choose my witnesses and examine them in my own way 
— and you appreciate the novelty presented for a witness to 
acknowledge, on the stand, that he is in possession of certain 
facts germain to establishing the truth in the case, but having 
learned other witnesses had been questioned, as to dissimilar 
points, and discharged, yet the court would have to rely upon said 
discharged witnesses because of some sort of understanding 
among themselves. 

Your concluding paragraph expresses the hope that I "will 
write Mr. Farrell, who will, I am sure, promptly give you the in- 
formation desired." You promised to do this — the above cita- 
tions from Mr. Farrell's letters should convince you that "infor- 
mation" from that source would not be reliable. 



382 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

In concluding this subject with you, will state that I under- 
stand that principle of the law relating to witnesses, and, 
although you have placed yourself in the category of a "sworn" 
witness in the case, I shall not object to your invoking said rule, 
if indeed you wish to do so or feel that it is necessary; but con- 
sidering the promptness of the Knights of Columbus in taking 
up the question of the oath alleged to be theirs, and manner of 
you and your Laymen's Association concerning this question, you 
must recognize you are falling far short of the understood and 
advertised purposes of said association. 

I shall not expect you to take up any more of your valuable 
time with the subject, unless you decide to "make good" the 
promise contained in a former letter. 

With best personal wishes, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

Macon, Ga., Feb. 10, 1920. 
Dr. C. A. Yarbrough, Macon, Ga. 

Dear Dr. Yarbrough: Your favor of the 2d instant received. 

While I noted your hint that my reply would not be welcome 
unless it would conform strictly to your views, it is a rule with 
me to answer all letters, as in my opinion there are times when 
this simple courtesy comes very near being a fundamental. In- 
deed, although I do not seem to have made myself clear to you, 
this is the ground of my insistence that for any information you 
desire from the Laymen's Association you should write Mr. Far- 
rell, head of our information bureau, with whom you have had 
previous correspondence which, it seems to be conceded, was 
uniformly courteous on his part. 

That I did not first suggest this to you when you asked me for 
information was due to the fact that, although you wrote me as 
an officer of the Laymen's Association, you failed to state that 
you knew Mr. Farrell was in charge of our information bureau; 
that, in fact, you had previously asked him for information in 
regard to matters Catholic, but had returned his last letter to 
you without doing him the courtesy to open it. I may be mis- 
taken in thinking that it would have been more straight-forward 
for you to have given me this information when writing me as 
an officer of the same organization and seeking information on 
the same general subject, but I am not mistaken as to my proper 
course after I had learned the facts which you failed to disclose 
in regard to your previous dealings with one of my colleagues. 

You say that you have "followed the general rules of our 
courts" in seeking information, but I hope you will pardon me 
if I suggest that it would have been more to the point to observe 
the ordinary usages of correspondence obtaining among gentle- 
men; and, in passing, I beg to remind you that even the rules of 
our courts usually require one to ''come with clean hands." 

As to your prolix effort to tax me with impropriety for refer- 
ring you to Mr. Farrell when I knew that there had been a 
"breach of diplomatic relations," what do you think, since the 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 383 

breach was on your part, of the propriety of trying to renew 
relations in an irregular way without disclosing the circum- 
stances or even the existence of the previous relations which you 
severed? 

As to your insinuation that Mr. Farrell's bureau is "unreli- 
able," I take this to be merely an expression of your pique, as 
you will not, of course, say frankly that Mr. Farrell gave you 
information that is incorrect. 

Under the circumstances, Dr. Yarbrough, I see no other course, 
if you really desire to procure from our association a true copy 
of the obligation that our bishops take, except for you to resume 
the "diplomatic relations" which were so incontinently and un- 
ceremoniously severed by you. 

Since you wrote me in the first place expressly because I am 
an officer in the Laymen's Association, you will understand, of 
course, that there is nothing personal in my attitude or in what 
I have written. With kindest regards, I beg to remain, 
Very sincerely yours, 

John J. McCreary. 

Macon, Ga., Feb. 16, 1920. 
Mr. John J. McCreary, 
Attorney at Law, 
Macon, Ga. 

My Dear Mr. McCreary: Yours of the 10th instant to hand 
and contents carefully noted; while quite lengthy, two pertinent 
observations will suffice relative thereto, which please permit me 
to offer — 

First. You consider it a fundamental principle to answer all 
letters although they may pertain to a subject some "superior" 
must attend to; 

Second. While you evidently deem it fundamental to answer 
letters, you do not consider it necessary to answer questions — 
even after going so far as to "locate" the desired "answer" and 
after promising to render it, offering in lieu the specious plea that 
the "courtesy" owed to some "bureau" prompted the disregard 
of said promise, even after being notified that "information" from 
said source would not be considered reliable. 

Excepting your first two letters, your correspondence is replete 
with insinuations respecting what you consider "straightfor- 
ward" and what "gentlemen" would do under certain circum- 
stances; therefore, in view of your rule to answer letters, I re- 
spectfully submit the following hypothetical question (and you 
will please remember that it is not within the province of a 
witness to examine the hands of any person in court) : 

Question: Do you, as an American citizen, consider a person 
"courteous" and "straightforward" and a worthy citizen of this, 
the greatest nation in the world, and that he is exercising that 
fundamental spirit of Americanism which has made America 
what she is, who, upon learning that some man — a Protestant 
minister, we'll say — was discoursing upon those principles of 



384 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Americanism as set out in the Constitution, and their antithesis, 
would get together, as a Roman Catholic a lot of "Jesuitically"- 
prepared "information" and present it to said person as "Truth" 
strongly intimating that said information be assimilated in order 
to remove the scales from his metal optics, at the same time con- 
vey threats of suits for libel, or that if he did not cease such dis- 
cussions he would likely get "burnt" bad, or have to "swallow 
hard words," etc., even when the person delivering said "Truth" 
had no means of ascertaining whether or not what the said 
preacher stated or if said "information" was the truth in the 
case? Very truly, 

C. A. Yarbrough. 

Macon, Ga., March 9, 1920. 
Dr. C. A. Yarbrough, Macon, Ga. 

Dear Dr. Yarbrough: This will acknowledge receipt of your 
favor of the 16th ultimo. 

Your hypothetical question has received from me some thought 
and study, and I find that, figuratively speaking, you have put the 
cart before the horse. 

You will understand that the courts have established certain 
modes of procedure and practice therein, and one of the subjects 
touched upon is that of "Reasoning by Witnesses." The normal 
position of a witness is that portrayed in the Year Books; he must 
be oyant et voyant, he who hears and sees. His function is that 
of observation; the tribunal is to hear through his ears, and see 
through his eyes. His duty is to testify to facts, and let the jury 
draw the conclusions. 

It is, however, provided that a witness may, under certain cir- 
cumstances, testify to conclusions. It is in this connection that 
hypothetical questions are treated. The reasoning may be ex- 
plained in the following propositions: 

a. Testimony in the shape of inferences or conclusions rests 
always on certain premises of fact. 

b. These premises, a consideration of which is essential to the 
formation of the conclusion or opinion, must somehow be sup- 
plied by testimony. 

Consequently, you will see that there may be two distinct sub- 
jects of testimony — premises, and inferences or conclusions; that 
the latter involves necessarily a consideration of the former; and 
that the tribunal must be furnished with the means of rejecting 
the latter if they determine to reject the former, that is, of dis- 
tinguishing conclusions properly founded from conclusions im- 
properly founded. 

There are two fatal defects in your hypothetical question, or 
your foundation for the same: first, there is not one scintilla of 
evidence to support the premises you laid for the consideration of 
the witness; and, second, you have not qualified your witness as 
an expert. 

Until you have laid the proper foundation for your hypothetical 
question the same is open to objection, and I am confident that 
the court would decline to permit it to be put. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 385 

I feel perfectly free to take exception to this question as above, 
appreciating your desire to give your investigation judicial char- 
acteristics as far as is possible, though you may, of course, dis- 
count my opinion from considerations of youthfulness and lack 
of experience. 

With personal regards and best wishes, I remain, 
Very truly yours, 

John J. McCreary. 

Very little comment is needed regarding these letters. There is 
nothing in the Telegraph's news item to show that "the Catholic 
Laymen's Association of Macon was formed" as a part of the 
Farrell aggregation, and it is very amusing to observe how often, 
after his first two letters, Mr. John J. McCreary insisted that I 
write Farrell, which I consistently refused to do, and then read 
where he says I was trying "to renew relations in an irregular 
way." 

Mr. McCreary says that there are "two fatal defects" in my 
hypothetical question : to maintain the first, he would have to dis- 
claim, American citizenship, while the second relies only upon 
establishing his membership in the Catholic church, and whether 
or not he is an officer in an association formed for the express 
purpose of acting as a witness for Rome — of furnishing "infor- 
mation" to outsiders; that he is a Roman Catholic is not denied, 
while serving as a vice-president of the local Macon Catholic 
Laymen's Association, establishes his status as an "expert" wit- 
ness. 

He would plead youth and inexperience for the Callaway letter: 
it shows a true snapping "cub," while the above letters depict the 
panther-like tread of the full-grown Jesuit! 

I respectfully ask the American Jury to note well Mr. Mc- 
Creary's "manner on the stand" as a "witness": 

He "located" the information; was having a copy made to be 
tendered at an early date; he acknowledged having the informa- 
tion and that the "Publicity Bureau" of the Catholic Laymen's 
Association has the information; he has admitted that the copy 
of the oath printed and circulated by his former spiritual father, 
Frankhauser, was "NOT TRUE" in every particular; he evi- 
dently discovered something somehow, somewhere, after his sec- 
ond letter to me which changed "his manner on the witness stand" 
— his tongue, like Farrell's, seemed to have become electrocuted, 
or lock-jaw set in, and he COULD NOT UTTER A WORD 
further pertaining to the oath ! But the point I am leading to is 
this : if that oath is in the hands of the Catholic Laymen's "Pub- 
licity Bureau" they have kept it among Catholics to the exclu- 
sion of all others, and having a knowledge of that oath — which 
means DEATH TO EVERY THING AMERICAN AND EVERY 



386 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

THING PROTESTANT AND EVERY THING MASONIC, by 
the very feet that they conceal it — they are condemned, and con- 
demned out of their own mouths. 

That Frankhauser deliberately uttered a lie should cause every 
Romanist in Macon to blush with shame; that they are subjects 
of an institution requiring that oath will make every one of them 
an object of suspicion and distrust as they mix and mingle with 
the people; that they are sworn to persecute citizens in this land 
and institute pope-made law in the place of the civil law of the 
country should bar every one of them from all rights of citizen- 
ship in the United States ! We read in the Canon Law that the 
pope will excommunicate any Catholic who appeals to the laws of 
the land against the execution of any decree issued by him, and 
even if such a decree required a massacre according to the tenor 
of the bishop's oath, they would have to abide by said law: Messrs. 
Farrell and McCreary are typical Roman Catholics : if they would 
conceal the oath to which laymen are subject, could we expect 
them to violate the pope's law by revealing ANY COMMAND 
issued for their execution? HE WHO CONCEALS THE CON- 
SPIRATORS AND THEIR PLANS WILL BE A PARTY 
THERETO! 

Note how McCreary runs up to Mr. Callaway, as it were, with 
a copy of "Truth," a Jesuit magazine — but when I applied to him 
for the truth of the papal oath, my ! how he squirmed and twisted 
on the stand, when he received the hypothetical question, know- 
ing to answer would damn him and his church while to refuse 
such a ''fundamental" principle of his would make him contempt- 
uous in the opinion of "straight-forward" people. 

ARE Catholics "satisfied with our Constitution as it stands?" 
Farrell said they were, from the highest prelate to the lowest 
layman ! 

SOUTHERN "BIGOTRY" 

The following circular is by an Alabama priest : 

"A HOTBED OF ORGANIZED BIGOTRY" 
Gadsden, in North Alabama, located seventy (70) miles northeast of Bir- 
mingham, in a rich mineral section, is materially a prosperous and beautiful 
town of 18,000 inhabitants, and with the two adjoining towns of Alabama City 
and Attalla, has a population of over 30,000. It has a large steel plant, fur- 
naces, car works, cotton mills, pipe shops, etc. Gadsden belongs to the diocese 
of Mobile, which comprises the entire State of Alabama and Northwest 
Florida. 

Two years ago a non-Catholic doctor built a hospital in Gadsden. When the 
hospital was almost ready to be opened, this doctor had financial reverses, and 
was obliged to sell the four-story brick building just as it was being com- 
pleted. It being a wonderful opportunity of doing good, the Sisters of Divine 
Providence, of Pittsburgh, Pa., bought the hospital and equipped it at a cost 
of close to $60,000. On the Sunday previous to the opening of the hospital, the 
Rev. Dr. Purser, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Gadsden, preached a 
most vitriolic sermon against the Catholic Church on the text "Beware of 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 387 

False Prophets." He called the Sisters "wolves in sheep's clothing," said 
that any Protestants attending the opening of the hospital would be traitors 
to their faith, and if any accident happened to him, owing to the fact that his 
church was on a very dangerous corner of the town, where street cars and 
automobiles pass in numbers, he wanted to die on the street rather than be 
taken to that Catholic hospital. The hospital was opened by the Sisters under 
the name "The Gadsden General Hospital" and greatly appreciated by the 
doctors in town, none of whom are Catholic, because the hospital offered first- 
class service especially in surgical cases. With great difficulty the doctors 
persuaded their patients needing hospital treatment, but being filled with deep 
prejudice against Catholics to come to the hospital. Some of these patients 
when leaving the hospital stated they would slap anyone's face who would 
repeat to them the filthy lies about Catholic Sisters and convents. The bring- 
ing into the hospital of these prejudiced people for professional services, had 
the beneficial effect of opening their eyes and weakening their prejudice by 
personal observation, but it also fanned bigotry into flame. A very wave of 
bigotry swept over the town and holds it in its grasp, especially through the 
agitation of some of the preachers and the members of the Junior Order 
American Mechanics. 

The "T. A." which stands for "True Americans," posing as a so-called 
patriotic society, is in fact solely an anti-Catholic secret organization, which 
has worked with dire success in Birmingham. This society was now estab- 
lished in Gadsden. They claim to have gotten a membership of over a thou- 
sand men in a few days. The city is now in the hands of the "T. A.," whose 
object is to close the hospital, school, and church. Preachers in Gadsden not 
only joined the "T. A." but went actively on a committee to join the 
"T. A.," asking the doctors who brought patients to our hospital to join the 
"T. A." and when the doctors refused, they were told that if they brought 
any more patients to the Catholic hospital, the "T. A." would see to it that 
nobody would require the services of these doctors in the future and so they 
would have to leave town. The same threat of breaking up his profession in 
Gadsden was made to the lawyer representing the hospital. The doctor who 
at the time was bringing the greatest number of patients to our hospital, re- 
ceived threatening letters that he would be horsewhipped and tarred and 
feathered if he brought any more patients into this Catholic hospital, "where 
every dollar is used to make the pope fat." The "T. A." even influenced peo- 
ple, who for many years had been completely satisfied with the professional 
services of these doctors, to tell the doctors not to use the hospital under the 
penalty of losing their old practice. Some of the doctors lost heavily and were 
forced to abandon the hospital to retain their business. One of these doctors 
has just bought property to open a forty (40) room hospital of his own. The 
"T. A." canvassed the town and got the people to sign pledges that no one of 
their families would be taken to this hospital, and as far as they could, keep 
their friends from going there, if necessary helping them to go to hospitals 
in Birmingham or Anniston. By this underhand trick the hospital was emp- 
tied entirely and boycotted effectively for the only reason that it is operated 
and owned by Catholic Sisters. There is a trial in court now to tax this hos- 
pital, although during its short existence it has done over $1,700.00 worth of 
purely charity work for thirty-five (35) Protestant and non-Catholic patients, 
not counting part pay patients and bad pays, and according to law such an 
institution is a charity institution, not subject to tax. 

At the same time these bigots boasted they would wipe out Catholicity in 
Gadsden and break up the only Catholic parish in Gadsden and the surrounding 
four counties by taking away the dinner bucket from every Catholic man. 
By concerted, organized action, men of our faith were thrown out of employ- 
ment on account of their religion and my best and most influential members 
were driven away one after another. Over the advertising signs of one of my 
Catholic men, in business for himself, the bigots put in big black lettering, 
"Don't patronize this man ; he is a Catholic" ; other signs they obliterated 
entirely. Another man of my parish running an electric grist mill and sup- 
plying a number of grocers, was told they could not use his goods because 
he was a Catholic. Rents were raised on Catholics to force them to move 
and after they had moved, the previous rate of rent was charged to non- 
Catholics moving in. New Catholics coming to Gadsden rented rooms which 
they kept till it was found out that they were Catholics when an excuse was 
found to make them leave. St. James, the only Catholic parish in Gadsden, 
had two masses each Sunday, both well attended, now we have only a mere 
handful left, most of the men had to seek work and home elsewhere. The 
parish has been shattered — the effective work of organized bigotry. 



388 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

In order to keep pouring oil into the fire of bigotry and hatred of every- 
thing Catholic, the most notorious anti-Catholic lecturers are brought to 
Gadsden. In widely advertised public meetings in parks, etc., these lecturers 
let loose a deluge of lies about the Catholic church. They are very loud on 
patriotism, that the Catholic church is a foreign political organization trying 
to get control of this Government, that the church hates our flag and forbids 
it being displayed in the church, that the Catholic members of the Federal 
Government and admirals of the navy when going to confession during the 
war, were drawn out by the shrewd questioning of priests who thus obtained 
war secrets and sent these war secrets to Rome and the pope gave them to 
Germany. It would fill a book to enumerate all their lies. 

BRUTAL BIGOTRY IN THE SOUTH 

Few Catholics in other sections of the United States have the faintest 
idea of the cruel bigotry practiced againts Catholics in many sections of the 
South. An almost unbelievable persecution is suffered by Catholics continu- 
ously in their daily lives, purely on account of their faith. A real American 
in the large cities of the North and East would hardly believe it possible that 
such a condition could exist in this, our "Land of the Free, and the Home of 
the Brave." 

In North Alabama, bigotry is rampant, most vigorous and aggressive. Ala- 
bama is one of the most illiterate States of the Union. Illiteracy is the most 
fertile soil of bigotry — bigotry born out of ignorance. Protestants are in the 
overwhelming majority. Many of the preachers try to put some pep and 
sensationalism into their sermons by attacking the Catholic church in the 
most hateful manner as a hideous monster. These preachers for many years 
back, have jealously nourished this bigotry among the Protestants, and have 
built a solid, massive wall of bigotry and prejudice by unceasingly denounc- 
ing, misrepresenting, and most outrageously slandering the Catholic church, 
so that the mass of native people drink in with their mother's milk, a fierce 
and undying hatred of everything Catholic. Constantly repeated distortions 
and direct lies in their churches, at revivals, and open mass meetings, are 
their unfailing ammunition. They tell their people that the Catholic church 
is made up of the most ignorant people, who are priest-ridden, that the priest 
forgives ordinary sins for one dollar, stealing for five dollars, and real juicy 
sins for ten dollars ; they call the Catholic priests bachelor libertines, who 
make gods out of pancakes ; that they sell "Indulgencies" ; that the Catholic 
church preaches that if a Protestant man marries a Protestant woman and is 
not married by a Catholic priest, these Protestants are not married at all and 
are living in adultery, their children being bastards, and that if a Protestant 
asks a Catholic priest if the Catholic priest really teaches this, the Protestant 
could not find out the real truth because every priest is a privileged liar, for 
the reason that his church teaches him that if he tells a lie for the benefit of 
the Catholic church it is not a sin, etc., etc. 

During the war many of the young men from these Southern bigoted sec- 
tions who had never heard a good word about the Catholics, were drafted into 
the army, and "over there" these men found that their uniform was all that 
was necessary to make them recipients of the many kindnesses and whole- 
hearted services of the K. of C. huts, where "Everybody welcome and every- 
thing free" greeted all soldiers irrespective of their religion. Many of these 
boys wrote back home that they found two classes of white people "over 
there" : The American Red Cross and the Knights of Columbus. They re- 
peated their good experiences with the K. of C. when arriving back home. 
To counteract this breaking down of prejudice, a monster union meeting was 
held in Gadsden in the large Methodist church, in which the largest congre- 
gations of Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists joined with their pastors to 
hear the Rev. Dr. Holmes, of Birmingham, a former Y. M. C. A. secretary 
for a year in France, who was brought to Gadsden to counteract the good im- 
pression made by the K. of C. work. The next day the two daily Gadsden 
papers on the front pages glaringly reported "Dr. Holmes scathingly de- 
nounces the Catholic church," and had whole columns of how the great big 
assembly in this prayer-meeting had been carried away by Dr. Holmes in his 
assault on the Catholic Church, so much so that he was frequently inter- 
rupted by stormy applause. 

The lies of these so-called lecturers against the Catholic church are freely 
published on the front pages of our two daily papers, but if we attempt to 
defend ourselves by answering these attacks, the columns of the same papers 
are closed against us, unless we pay full advertising rates, with the exception 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 389 

of one time when our answer to an attack was published free under the head- 
ing "Letters to the Editor," and the defense even then will not appear on the 
front pages. The first time we put in an answer to some slanders, at the 
regular advertising rates, an editorial told that we paid full advertising rates 
and that that paper did not employ any Catholics. 

Tons and tons of such vile anti-Catholic sheets like the Menace, Yellow 
Jacket, Rip Saw, and tons of pamphlets containing the bogus K. of C. oath 
with millions of other lies, are scattered broadcast in homes and openly 
placed on file in business places and greedily devoured by these ignorant peo- 
ple, who believe, because these lies are printed they must be true. A parade 
of the Junior Order American Mechanics, headed by a Congressman and other 
prominent politicians, was stopped in front of our school and a stack of the 
meanest issues of the Menace distributed to our small school children. 

CATHOLIC CRUSADERS IN GADSDEN 
We had taken all the abuse and slander heaped upon us as Catholics for 
years in Gadsden, but when the dagger of persecution was placed right at our 
hearts and our very existence was threatened, we had to organize the few 
men left into a defense league. We took whole pages in both daily papers, 
paying at regular advertising rates and answered the lies, slanders, misrepre- 
sentations, and insinuations, and showed how un-American this anti-Catholic 
crusade is. At the same time we are mailing pamphlets regularly to the people 
of the whole town. We do not deceive ourselves into believing that we will be 
able to convert the leaders of this hellish bigotry. Christ Himself could not 
convert the Pharisees. But by not letting up to nail the lies and correct the 
misrepresentations, we will finally bring the public opinion of the mass of 
misinformed people and of broad-minded business men in Gadsden (many of 
whom are now afraid to take a public stand for fear of their business being 
boycotted) to that stage where they will unite in action through some organi- 
zation like the Rotary Club, or Chamber of Commerce, to take a decided stand 
against any and every kind of bigotry. It is a hard and tedious work, but we 
know not the word quit, and we know we will finally come out victorious, the 
same as the first Catholics did from the Catacombs, for the fifth mark of the 
True Church is persecution, but never annihilation. 

ST. JAMES PARISH IN GADSDEN HAS A HARD, HARD 
ROAD TO TRAVEL 

When a stranger comes here, the first question he is asked is : "What 
church do you belong to?" and if he says, "I am a Catholic," he is at once 
ostracized socially in every possible way by the great mass of the natives, 
and boycotted in business, just as though he were a criminal and had served 
a term in prison — the only stain, however, is that of being a despised Cath- 
olic. When a stranger inquires for the Catholic church, he is told there is 
none here. 

Forty years ago a little Catholic frame church was built here as a mission 
church, where holy mass was offered occasionally. Gradually a little flock 
came together which grew into a good sized parish, with a resident priest. 
The little original church had been repaired time and again but is now a 
shack almost unfit for the use as the house of God, whereas the various Protes- 
tant denominations have beautiful, substantial, costly church buildings ; even 
the colored have two brick churches. But even though our Catholic pioneers 
realized that a new church edifice was badly needed, still they thought it most 
essential first of all to build a parochial school without delay. They made 
heroic sacrifices, built a good school and got five Benedictine Sisters as 
teachers. These loyal Catholics, who did not own their own homes, without 
help from anyone outside of parish members, each year paid off a part of the 
debt. But now the once vigorous parish through persecutions has been shat- 
tered and made helpless, only a few Catholics are left with a $10,000.00 debt 
on St. James Parish. We would not have been able to keep above the water 
and pay the interests, if the good Sisters of Pittsburgh had not helped us 
through the pennies collected by little mission bands of school children in the 
East. 

It makes your red American blood boil to think of the injustice and totally 
un-American spirit of this anti-Catholic crusade. One of my parishioners, 
who has lost his position in Gadsden on account of his religion, had moved to 
Chicago and presented my case to his parish priest who took up a collection 
in church for us. This enabled me to come to Chicago to seek funds to make 
my good fight in a campaign of refutation of slander of the true church. I am 



390 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

a Knight — where would I go but to my own kind? So I visited and spoke 
before thirty-three councils of the Knights of Columbus in the short time I 
had in Chicago. Not to one council have I appealed in vain. My appeal in 
each council went directly to the hearts of all men present, and every council 
visited, has vied with the others to help to the umost ability. 

If I can reach the hearts of a sufficiently large number of individual Knights 
of Columbus to pledge themselves to give us a dime a month for twelve 
months, I will be able with God's help, to fight this anti-Catholic crusade in 
Gadsden to the last ditch, and receiving the small gifts of so many, it will 
accumulate sufficiently so that I will have enough left to pay off the $10,- 
000.00 debt of a now helpless parish, and to give the best answer to this anti- 
Catholic agitation by building in place of the shack now used as a church a 
small but substantial brick church, a permanent house of God, and raise the 
cross of Holy Mother Church, the true church, higher than ever in the midst 
of this persecution and vile bigotry. A neat substantial church building will 
greatly help in giving a favorable outward impression to these people. Even 
the small contributions of so many individual Knights will make my cause 
invincible, and the "T. A." noticing the help from so many men, will lose 
their aggressive spirit, knowing they aie too small to succeed to wipe us out. 
In union there is strength. The Catholics will gradually come together again 
and regain employment, our institutions will remain intact, and the parish 
will grow to the honor and glory of God and the salvation of immortal souls. 

This dime a month for twelve months will be no hardship on any one 
Knight, but each ten cents will do ten dollars' worth of good in the South. 
Each one pledging himself to this help is doing the work of an apostle and 
missionary. It will be a great moral help to me, knowing that I am not alone 
in this fight, but have the moral and financial help of so many brave Catholic 
men. 

WHAT I ASK OF YOU 

Give me a dime a month for one year — you will not miss it. Sign the en- 
closed slip, pledging yourself to give a dime a month, or more if you wish, for 
twelve months. Pay as you can, either monthly, quarterly, or in full, send- 
ing directly to me. 

When your payments are completed, do not destroy the pledge slip, but 
return it to me as I want to place the slips in an iron box in our altar as an 
historical monument of this bitter persecution and a memorial of Catholic 
unity, and also for mementoes in Holy Mass for these benefactors ; this will 
bring you immeasurable spiritual blessings during your whole life. 

BE GENEROUS, BROTHERS! 

Can you spare a dime a month to help this Catholic cause? This small 
amount from many will help in showing these bigots how Catholic gentlemen 
stand back of their faith. This campaign, soliciting aid, will be to launch a 
counter campaign against the slanderers of our Holy Faith and open the eyes 
of many in this section to the fact that the Catholic church is not what they 
had been taught it to be. Brother, you are a member of the same mystic body 
of Christ of which also St. James Parish is a member, we are all united by 
the universal bond of Catholicity — you will not hesitate to sign the enclosed 
slip, if you remember what it means to you as a Catholic and as a Knight of 
Columbus. Brother, as a true Knight of Columbus, are you going to have it 
said that the Catholic church has been vanquished in this case? Brother, you 
are not going to let the Catholic church lose this battle. Being animated 
with the true spirit of Catholic Knighthood, you will be anxious to further 
the honor and glory of God and His true church in a bigoted land, to help the 
weak and unjustly oppressed, to assist a brother Knight, to help a priest in 
distress. The whole sacrifice consists of a dime a month, a total of $1.20 for 
one year.This is a voluntary donation and need not be limited to above amount. 
Won't you join in this noble work the brothers of the thirty-three councils in 
Chicago who have enthusiastically taken up my assistance in this dire dis- 
tress? ARE YOU WITH ME? I could not stay away any longer from my 
parish to speak personally to other councils. I had to go back to my battle- 
field, so I am appealing to YOU by this messenger to help me win with your 
mite in the crusade against this worst form of bigotry. 

I appeal to you in the name of the Divine Master, Who said, "Whatsoever 
ye have done unto the least of My brethren, ye have done unto Me." 

The Heavenly Father seeing in secret will reward this act done purely for 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 391 

His glory. He is never outdone in generosity and charity. May God bless you 
and your family. Pray for my people and me. 

If convenient, shoxv this circular to other Catholics, not K. of C. members, 
who might ivish ft> help. Will gladly send you more pledge cards if you will 
drop me a line requesting them. 

Rev. Herman J. B. Schmedtner. 

St. James Church, 622 Chestnut Street, Gadsden, Ala. 

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS 
"If I may single out one society without prejudice to the merits of the 
others, I will name in particular manner that splendid organization, the 
Knights of Columbus. They are our joy and crown. They are the glory of 
Jerusalem. They are the joy of Israel. They are the honor of our people. 
Wherever calumny raises its foul head, they are ever ready, like true knights, 
to smite the enemy. Whenever an appeal is made in the cause of religion or 
charity, they are always foremost in lending a helping hand." 

His Eminence, James Cardinal, Gibbons. 

Bishop's Residence 

400 Government Street 

Mobile, Ala. 

August 26, 1919. 
Rev. H. J. Schmidtner 

Reverend and Dear Father: Your favor of August 21st came 
to hand recently. I am pleased to see you take advantage of 
Father Benedict's visit from Cullman to take a little vacation. 
You have earned it. 

I sympathize with you deeply in your difficulties in Gadsden. 
The bigots have, for the time being, done the parish no little harm 
by driving away your best and most influential members. It is 
hard to make progress in face of such persistent opposition. It is 
hard to pay debts when our enemies resort to such underhand 
tricks to cripple us. The organized efforts of the bigots in Gadsden 
seem to have done more harm there than anywhere else, unless 
possibly in Birmingham. It is difficult to understand the spirit 
which is behind this anti-Catholic movement. 

You need help and need it badly to continue your fight against 
iniquity, and to keep your parish alive. I sincerely hope you will 
secure some aid from outside, during your vacation. If our 
brethren in the North and East realized what fierce battles we 
must fight from day to day, in some bigoted towns in the South, 
they would be generous in their efforts to help us. 

I return Mr. Dalton's letter and I wish you would tell him how 
much I appreciate his kindness and generosity to you in your 
difficulties. Wishing you every blessing, 

I am, Reverend and Dear Father, 

Sincerely yours in Christ, 

f Edw. P. Allen, Bishop of Mobile. 

In the first three pages of this circular Rev. Mr. "Schmedtner" 
describes conditions as he sees them in Gadsden, Ala.; I can not 
say that he is right or wrong, so place it before the reader as 
information. 

On page four we find a letter from the Bishop of Mobile; he 
says "The bigots have . . . done the parish no little harm. . . . 



392 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

It is difficult to understand the spirit which is behind this anti- 
Catholic movement . . ." 

So! the bishop is at a loss, and I will take the liberty of ad- 
vancing a few ideas from which he may have an understanding 
of this "anti-Catholic movement" in Gadsden and elsewhere: if 
he will be so kind as to again read the oath he swore which made 
him a "PRINCE" in the Papal Government it may prove of some 
assistance in enlightening his understanding. Of course, he may 
not act upon my suggestion, therefore for the understanding of 
all who may be in his condition, I will cite from an Encyclical of 
Leo XIII, "Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens," January 19, 
1890, as a peg upon which to hang a few ideas : 

"Hence it follows that not only is the church a perfect society 
far exceeding any other . . . but she is to contend as an army 
drawn up in battle array. (Italics Leo's.) The organization and 
constitution of Christian society can in no wise be changed, 
neither can any ONE of its members live as he may choose, nor 
elect that MODE OF FIGHTING WHICH BEST PLEASES 
HIM." 

The papal church is like an army drawn up in battle array 
against every right granted man in Holy Writ and the Constitu- 
tion of these United States. 

As in an army, Catholics can not live as they choose, nor elect 
that mode of fighting which best pleases them. The purpose of a 
soldier is to take the objective indicated by his commander-in- 
chief: in the army will be found commanders, captains, privates 
— all bound by an oath of allegiance to the supreme commander; 
an army requires spies and other secret agents, who are dispensed 
to become "dear, sweet friends" of those from whom they expect 
to receive information or assistance. To "Make America Domi- 
nantly Catholic" is the great objective of the papal army; to take 
this objective the forces have been federated into one great body 
which the pope directs through his "generals" who place soldiers 
where they can best serve the "army" so that to-day, of a truth 
Leo XIII correctly boasts : "We are but of yesterday . . yet we 
swarm in all your institutions, we crowd your cities,, islands, 
villages, towns, assemblies, the army itself, your wards and cor- 
porations, the palace, the senate, and the law courts," p. 132, 
Encyc. Lets. He could now include the public schools as teachers, 
on the press as censors, and everywhere else a "shot" may be 
fired at FREEDOM. 

All soldiers are not on the firing-line: some may be sitting as 
loyal members of private council boards directing the war; some 
may be at the head of war-work; some may be in charge of the 
manufacture of war necessaries. 

If the Alabama circular was read by some hair-brained Protes- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 393 

tant, that tale of persecution by papal soldiers would cause ''its" 
soul to flame with righteous indignation against his own "army" 
while he would give both aid and comfort to the "enemy" — which 
would be "taking" the objective in his case ! 

But let us get to the point for the benefit of the bishop: To 
gain its objective, an army will employ direct or indirect means; 
if a direct assault appears to be best, that is made; if conditions 
seem to indicate strategy would be more successful, strategy is 
the command. If the pope should command his "army" in Amer- 
ica to attempt a direct assault with arms, it would have to obey — 
but as that does not seem "expedient" for the present other means 
must be resorted to — indirection. To accomplish its objective, Leo 
said no "fixed rule" could be followed, that means adopted must 
suit "times and places," but the "aim" or "objective" sought 
MUST BE UNIFORM; to one squad of "soldiers" he may com- 
mand the death of William Black; another, maim Otis Spurgeon; 
wreck the Baptist church at Carbondale, Pa., where the "enemy" 
was holding discussions; order ten thousand men to report for 
duty and prevent free speech in Haverhill, Mass.; break up the 
Slattery lecture in a Masonic Temple of Chicago and beat up 
those in attendance. To another division of his army, he orders 
pickets to be placed in every political party, become members of 
all committees, preside as officers — but before voting-day they 
will be correctly informed which party offered the highest bid, 
and they will know how to vote; to another division of his army 
he issues orders that they run for every office; become private 
secretaries of Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, to secure or 
suppress information as the case may require; others must be- 
come Congressmen or Senators, judges, etc.; to his captains, the 
priests, he orders representation at all civic league gatherings, 
Y. M. C. A. or other work of that kind; to other soldiers is com- 
mitted the duty of mixing and mingling wherever possible among 
non-Catholics hoping that their presence alone will prevent dis- 
cussions of papalism; to another division of his army he orders 
an ingratiating attitude: beg from the enemy funds and erect 
costly "H. 0. G. S." into which defenseless girls and women can 
be enslaved for our "army"; beg money and build magnificent 
"non-sectarian" hospitals in every city and get the philanthropic 
work out of the hands of the State thereby weaning those you aid 
from the community theory; in these hospitals papal soldiers 
must appear as angels of mercy: every hated "heretic" restored 
to health therein means a "spiked gun" ever after if it does not 
mean an open purse and a "recruit" for the papal army — they are 
at least inclined to "slap the face" of one who refuses to be 
"spiked." 

As a soldier of the pope, whatever a Catholic does — whether it 
be murdering a William Black or going through winter's bleak- 



394 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

ness to feed some poor member of the human family — is in obedi- 
ence to orders of the commander-in-chief; he alone has the right 
to reason, therefore he rules and directs how the army shall fight : 
if, in order to "take the objective" it requires the bullet, ballot, 
or a smile, a Catholic must obey! 

Speaking of hospitals : suppose I should become sick or injured 
in some city and placed in a hospital under the supervision of that 
division of the pope's army called "sisters" and they should learn 
who I am? 

Suppose like fate should befall a leader of the Scottish Rite 
Masons? 

Or a Guardian of Liberty should meet with that misfortune? 

AS SOLDIERS COMMANDED TO OCCUPY THIS POSI- 
TION BY THEIR SUPERIOR OFFICER, with unconscious 
EXCOMMUNICATED HERETICS in their hands, what would 
they do? And papal hospitals usually have Papal Physicians! 

WHO SHALL HAVE CHARGE OF THE HOSPITAL, a divi- 
sion of the pope's army or the STATE? 

"If our brethren in the North and East realized — " WHEN 
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES "REALIZE" THE 
DEADLY MEANING OF THE PAPAL "INTENTION" OR 
OBJECTIVE AS DEFINED IN THE BISHOP'S OATH, THE 
STRUGGLE OF THAT ARMY WILL BE OVER IN AMER- 
ICA! 

Cardinal Gibbons says the Knights of Columbus are the "joy 
and crown" of the Roman church : "Wherever calumny raises its 
foul head, they are ever ready, like true knights, to smite the 
enemy": now, Sir Knights, if the bishop's oath is not true, it's 
"calumny" — "go to it!" 



LETTERS BY THE REV. JOHN WESLEY 

Mr. Farrell presented an Englishman, Cardinal John Henry 
Newman, a "convert" from the English Episcopal church, to 
prove that Roman Catholics have a free conscience. (That they 
can not discuss or debate Roman Catholicism is sufficient to prove 
that their conscience is directed and controlled by the papal LAW 
and the regulatory decrees of the pope.) Having cited an English 
authority, I shall quote from one who is as well known as New- 
man, John Wesley of the Methodist church; he lived in a period 
— 1703-1791 — when papalism could be seen and felt, which re- 
quired a Protestant to be true to his convictions, that has given 
the world that freedom from that influence which it continues to 
enjoy, and which will be retained only as long as men called 
Protestant protest indeed. (Newman, 1801-1890.) 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 395 

The quotations which I shall use are cited from Vol. V of a 
book, "The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A. M.," "pub- 
lished by J. Emory and B. Waugh, for the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, at the Conference Office, 14 Crosby Street, J. Collord, 
Printer, 1831," New York. 

The section from which I quote is 

"TWO LETTERS TO THE EDITORS OF THE FREEMAN'S JOURNAL, DUBLIN 

"To the Reader. 

"Several months since, Father O'Leary, a Capuchin friar in 
Dublin, published Remarks upon this Letter in the Freeman's 
Journal. As soon as these were sent to me, I published a Reply in 
the same paper. When I read more of his Remarks, printed in 
five succeeding journals, I wrote a second Reply; but did not think 
it worth while to follow, step by step, so wild, rambling a writer. 

"Mr. O'Leary has now put his six letters into one, which are 
reprinted in London, with this title, 'Mr. O'Leary 's Remarks on 
the Rev. Mr. W.'s Letters in Defence of the Protestant Associa- 
tions of England; to which are prefixed Mr. Wesley's Letters.' 

"Is it by negligence or design that there are so many mistakes 
even in a title page? — 1, 'To which are prefixed Mr. W.'s Letters.' 
No : the second of those letters is not mine. I never saw it before. 
2, But where are the two letters published in the Freeman's 
Journal? Why is a spurious letter palmed upon us, and the gen- 
uine ones suppressed? 3, 'Letters in Defence of the Protestant 
Association in England.' Hold! In my first Letter I have only 
three lines in defence of a Tract published in London. But I have 
not one line 'in Defence of the Associations,' either in London or 
elsewhere. 

"If Mr. O'Leary will seriously answer the two following letters, 
he may expect a serious reply. But if he has only drollery and 
low wit to oppose to argument, I shall concern myself no farther 
about him. 

"London, Dec. 29, 1770. 

"letter i. 

"Gentlemen — 1. Mr. O'Leary does well to entitle his paper 
'Remarks,' as that word may mean anything or nothing; but it is 
more an answer to my Letter than to the Bull Unigenitus. He 
likewise does wisely in prefacing his 'Remarks' with so handsome 
a compliment: this may naturally incline you to think well of his 
judgment, which is no small point gained. 

"2. His manner of writing is easy and pleasant; but might it 
not as well be more serious? The subject we are treating of is 
not a light one : it moves me to tears rather than to laughter. I 
plead for the safety of my country; yea, for the children that are 
yet unborn. 'But can not your country be safe unless the Roman 
Catholics are persecuted for their religion?' Hold! Religion is 
out of the question : but I would not have them persecuted at all ; 
I would only have them hindered from doing hurt. I would not 
put it in their power (and I do not wish that others should) to 



396 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

cut the throats of their quiet neighbors. 'But they will give se- 
curity for their peaceable behaviour.' They can not while they 
continue Roman Catholics; they can not while they are members 
of that church which receives the decrees of the Council of Con- 
stance, which maintains the spiritual power of the Bishop of 
Rome, or the doctrine of priestly absolution. 

"3. This I observed in my late Letter. Whoever, therefore, 
would remark upon it to any purpose, must prove these three 
things: (1) That the decree of the Council of Constance, publicly 
made, has been publicly disclaimed. (2) That the Pope has not 
power to pardon sins. And (3) that no priest has the power to 
pardon sins. But has Mr. O'Leary proved these three points? 
Has he proved any one of them? He has, indeed, said something 
upon the first: he denies such a decree was ever made. 

"4. 1 am persuaded Mr. O'Leary is the first man that ever made 
the important discovery. But, before he is quite sure, let him 
look again into Father L'Abbe's 'Concila Maxima,' printed at 
Paris in the year 1672. The last volume contains a particular 
account of the Council of Constance; one of whose decrees (p. 169) 
is, That heretics ought to be put to death, non obstantibus salvis 
conductibus Imperatoris, Regum, &c, notwithstanding the public 
faith engaged to them in the most solemn manner.' Who then 
can affirm that no such doctrine or violation of faith with heretics 
is authorized at this council? Without putting on spectacles, 
which, blessed be God, I do not wear, I can read a little Latin still. 
And, while I can, I must fix this horrid doctrine on the Council of 
Constance. 

"5. But, supposing the Council of Constance had never ad- 
vanced this doctrine, or the Church of Rome had publicly dis- 
claimed it, my conclusion stands good till it is proved, (1) That 
no priest has a power of pardoning sins; and (2) That the Pope 
has neither a power of pardoning sins or of dispensing with oaths, 
vows, promises, &c. 

"Mr. O'Leary has proved neither of these: and what has he 
proved? It is hard to say. . . . 'The Catholics all over the world 
are liars, perjurers,' &c. Nay, I have never arraigned one of 
them. ... I arraign the doctrines, not the men. Either defend 
them, or renounce them. 

" 'I do renounce them,' says Mr. O'Leary. Perhaps you do. But 
the Church of Rome has never renounced them. . . . 

"4. 'Does Mr. Wesley intend to sound Alecto's horn, or the war- 
shell of the Mexicans?' All this is cruel aspersion indeed; designed 
merely to inflame! What I intend is neither more or less 
than this — to contribute my mite to preserve our constitution 
both in Church and State. 

"6. . . . 'His Letter contains all the horrors invented by blind 
zeal, set forth in the most bitter language.' Is this gentleman in 
his senses? I hope not. Else I know not what excuse to make 
for him. Not one bitter word in my Letter. . . . But still this is 
wide of the mark; which of those three points does it prove? 



"The whole matter is this. I have, without the least bitterness, 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 397 

advanced three reasons why I conceive it is not safe to tolerate 
Roman Catholics. But still, 1 would not have them persecuted: 
I wish them to enjoy the same liberty, civil and religious, which 
they enjoyed in England before the late act was repealed. Mean- 
time, I would not have a sword put into their hands ; I would not 
give them liberty to hurt others. Mr. O'Leary, with much arch- 
ness and pleasantry, has nibbled at one of these three reasons, 
leaving the other two untouched. . . . 

"John Wesley. 
"Manchester, March 23, 1780." 

The following are extracts from — 
"letter II. 

"Gentlemen — Some time ago, in a Letter published in London, I 
observed, 'Roman Catholics can not give those whom they account 
heretics any sufficient security for their peaceable behaviour.' 

"1. Because it has been publicly avowed in one of their General 
Councils, and never publicly disclaimed, that faith is not to be 
kept with heretics; 2. Because they hold the doctrine of priestly 
absolution; and, 3. The doctrine of papal pardons and dispensa- 
tions. 

"Mr. O'Leary has published 'Remarks' on this letter; nine parts 
in ten of which are quite wide of the mark. . . . 

"Close argument he does not attempt ; but he vapors, and skips 
to and fro, and rambles to all points of the compass, in a very 
lively and entertaining manner. 

"... I have now only to do with what he advances in your 
Journal of March 2. Here we read: 'For Mr. Wesley's second 
letter, see the last page.' I have seen it; but I can find no more 
of the second letter in the last page, than in the first. It would be 
strange if I did; for that second letter was never heard of, but in 
Mr. O'L.'s 'Remarks.' . . . 

"My argument was: . . . those who receive this Council can 
not be trusted by those whom they account heretics. This is my 
immediate conclusion. And if the premises be admitted, it will 
infallibly follow. 

"On this Mr. O'L. says, 'A Council so often quoted challenges 
peculiar attention. We shall examine it with all possible pre- 
cision and impartiality. . . . 

"But to the Council : 'Huss strikes at the root of temporal and 
civil authority. He boldly asserts, that all princes, magistrates, 
&c, in the state of mortal sin, are deprived, ipso facto (by the 
fact itself) of all power and jurisdiction. And by preaching these 
doctrines, he makes Bohemia a theatre of intestine war. See the 
Acts of the Council of Constance in L'Abbe's Collection of Coun- 
cils.' 

"I have seen them, but I can find nothing of all this therein. 

" 'He gave notice that he would stand his trial ; but he at- 
tempted to escape.' No, never; this is pure invention. 'He is ar- 
rested at Constance . . . and confined. The Council then de- 
clared, "No safe-conduct granted by the emperor, or any other 



398 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

princes, to heretics, ought to hinder them from being punished 
as justice shall require. And the person who has promised them 
security shall not be obliged to keep his promise, by whatever tie 
he may be engaged." ' 

"And did the Council of Constance declare this? 'Yes,' says 
Mr. O'Leary. I desire no more. But before I argue upon the 
point, permit me to give a little fuller account of the whole affair : 

"The Council of Constance was called by the Emperor Sigs- 
mund and Pope John XXIII. . . . Before it began, the Emperor 
sent some Bohemian gentlemen to conduct John Huss to Con- 
stance, solemnly promising that he should 'come and return 
freely, without fraud or interruption.' 

"Before he left Prague, he waited on the Bishop of Nazareth, 
Papal Inquisitor for that city and diocese, who, in the presence 
of many witnesses, gave him the following testimonial: 

" 'We, Nicholas, do by these presents make known to all men, 
that we have often talked with that honorable man, Master John 
Huss, and in all his sayings, doings, and behaviour, have proved 
him to be a faithful man; finding no manner of evil, sinister, or 
erroneous doings in him, unto this present.' 

"This was attested by the hand of the public notary, named 
Michael Pruthatietz. 

"After this, Conrade, Archbishop of Prague, declared before all 
the barons of Bohemia, that 'he knew not that John Huss was 
culpable or faulty in any crime or offence whatever.' " 

(Here Mr. Wesley relates the trial of Huss by the Council; that 
in all one hundred and nine charges were made against him, every 
one of which related to the Church, not one to the State.) 

"In the seventeenth session, the sentence and condemnation of 
John Huss was read and published. . . . 



"But says Mr. O'Leary: 'This regards the peculiar case of safe- 
conducts granted by princes to heretics.' If you mean, they took 
occasion from a particular case to establish a general rule, this is 
true; but what then? If the public faith with heretics may be 
violated in one instance, it may be in a thousand. 'But can the 
rule be extended farther?' It may; it must; we can not tell where 
to stop. Away then with your witticisms on so awful a subject! 
What! do you sport with human blood? I take burning men alive 
to be a very serious thing. I pray, spare your jests on the occa- 
sion." 

Mr. Wesley then goes on to say that Sigsmund should have gone 
before that Council and said : " 'My own honor, and yours, and 
that of the empire is at stake. I will not upon any account 
suffer the public faith to be violated. I will not make myself 
infamous to all generations. My name shall not stink to all 
future ages. I will rather part with my empire, my life.' . . . 
He would have done it, had he been an honest man; had he had 
either honor or conscience. I ask Mr. O'Leary, Would not you 
have done it, had you been in Sigsmund's place? If you say, 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 399 

'No,' a Protestant ought not to trust you, any more than he would 
a wild bull. 



"What security then for my life can a man give me, till he 
utterly renounces the Council of Constance? What security can 
any Romanist give a Protestant, till this doctrine is publicly ab- 
jured? . . . 

"Would I then wish the Roman Catholics to be persecuted? I 
never said or hinted at any such thing. I abhor the thought: it 
is foreign to all I have preached and wrote for these fifty years. 
... I wish them to stand just as they did before the late act was 
passed; not to be persecuted or hurt themselves; but gently re- 
strained from hurting their neighbors. 



'John Wesley. 



'Chester, March 31, 1780.' 



The following quotations are from a letter written by Mr. 
Wesley : 

"A Letter to the Printer of the Public Advertiser. 

"Sir — Some time ago a pamphlet was sent me, entitled, 'An 
Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great 
Britain.' A day or two since, a kind of answer to this was put 
into my hands, which pronounced its style contemptible, its rea- 
soning futile, and its object malicious. On the contrary, I think 
the style is clear, easy, and natural; the reasoning in general, 
strong and conclusive; the object or design kind and benevolent. 
And in pursuance of the same kind and benevolent design, namely, 
to preserve our happy constitution, I shall endeavor to confirm 
the substance of that tract by a few plain arguments. 

"With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man 
for his religious principles. Let there be as 'boundless a freedom 
in religion' as any man can conceive. But this does not touch 
the point : I will set religion, true or false, utterly out of the ques- 
tion. Suppose the Bible, if you please, to be a fable, and the 
Koran to be the word of God. I consider not, whether the Romish 
religion be true or false : I build nothing on one or the other sup- 
positions. Therefore, away with all your common-place declama- 
tion about intolerance and persecution for religion! Suppose 
every word of Pope Pius' creed to be true; suppose the Council 
of Trent to have been infallible; yet I insist upon it, that no gov- 
ernment not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman 
Catholic persuasion. 

"I prove this by a plain argument: (let him answer it that 
can) — That no Roman Catholic does, or can, give security for his 
allegiance or peaceable behaviour. I prove thus: It is a Roman 
Catholic maxim, established, not by private men, but by a public 
council, that 'no faith is to be kept with heretics.' This has been 
openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it never was 
openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow it, 
it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But as long as it is 
so, nothing can be more plain, than that the members of that 



400 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

church can give no reasonable security to any government of their 
allegiance or peaceable behaviour. Therefore they ought not to 
be tolerated by any government, Protestant, Mohammedan, or 
Pagan. 

"You may say, 'Nay, but they will take an oath of allegiance.' 
True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, 'No faith is to be kept 
with heretics/ sweeps them all away as a spider's web. So that 
still no governors that are not Roman Catholics can have any 
security of their allegiance. 

"Again: Those who recognize the spiritual power of the Pope 
can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but 
all Roman Catholics acknowledge this: therefore they can give 
no security for their allegiance. 

"The power of granting pardons for all sins, past, present, and 
to come, is, and has been for many centuries, one branch of his 
spiritual power. 

''But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power 
can give no security for their allegiance; since they believe the 
Pope can pardon rebellions, high treason and all other sins what- 
soever. 

"The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is 
another branch of the spiritual power of the Pope. And all who 
acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But 
whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the Pope can give 
no security for his allegiance to any government. 

"Oaths and promises are none; they are light as air; a dis- 
pensation makes them all null and void. 

"Nay, not only the Pope, but even a priest, has power to par- 
don sins! This is an essential doctrine of the Church of Rome. 
But they who acknowledge this can not give any security for 
their allegiance to any government. Oaths are no security at 
all; for the priest can pardon both perjury and high treason. 

"Setting then religion aside, it is plain, that upon principles of 
reason, no government ought to tolerate men who can not give 
any security to that government of their allegiance and peace- 
able behaviour. But this no Romanist can do, not only while he 
holds that 'no faith is to be kept with heretics,' but so long as he 
acknowledges either priestly absolution or the spiritual power of 
the Pope . . . 

"John Wesley. 

"City Road, January 21, 1780." 

Mr. Wesley presents his case in a way that needs no interpre- 
tation by another to understand it; the similarity of the tactics 
of Mr. O'Leary and Mr. Farrell, though one hundred and thirty- 
nine years and the Atlantic separate them, shows that in spirit 
or "Intention" the Roman church is "always the same." Where 
there is not absolute exterior similarity, that is because of expe- 
diency ; internally, there has never been, and indeed can never be, 
a change. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 401 

The decree of the Council of Constance, like many other laws 
of that church, is not dead, but is sleeping under expediency; like 
the marriage law of the Council of Trent, promulgated hundreds 
of years ago, but was enforced in America in this twentieth 
century. 

But if there had never been such a decree as that of Constance, 
the decrees of more recent popes and councils would force the 
same conclusion as that of Mr. Wesley: the Canon Law says the 
pope has the right to absolve from any sin, and from any oath; 
that the church of Rome has the right to use force to compel 
obedience to her decrees ; that it is a "perfect society" which has 
the right to remove heretics from earth by death — and every 
member is bound by an oath of allegiance to the pope to promul- 
gate and defend the laws and decrees of the institution. 

In answer to Question 12, Mr. Farrell said that in such case, 
Catholics would pay no attention to the pope; but as long as one 
remains connected with the system, he is bound to observe its 
rules; and in this connection, let us hear William E. Gladstone, 
English statesman, in his book, ''Vatican Decrees in Their Bear- 
ing on Civil Allegiance," wherein he shows from the Vatican 
decree that a Catholic must be obedient to the regulatory au- 
thority of the pope in the same degree as he is faithful to the 
pope's infallibility in matters of faith ; says Mr. Gladstone : 

"Even therefore, where the judgments of the pope do not pre- 
sent the credentials of Infallibility, they are unappealable and 
irreversible: no person may pass jugment upon them; and all 
men, clerical and lay, dispersedly or in the aggregate, are bound 
truly to obey them ; and from this rule of Catholic truth no man 
can depart, save at the peril of his salvation. Surely, it is allow- 
able to say that this Third Chapter on universal Obedience is a 
formidable rival to the Fourth Chapter on Infallibility. Indeed, 
to an observer from without, it seems to leave the dignity to the 
other, but to reserve the stringency and efficacy to itself. The 
Third Chapter is the Morovingian Monarch; the Fourth is the 
Carolingian Mayor of the Palace. The Third has an overawing 
splendor; the Fourth, an iron grip. Little does it matter to me 
whether my superior claims infallibility, so long as he is entitled 
to demand and exact conformity. This, it will be observed, he 
demands, even in cases not covered by his infallibility; cases, 
therefore, in which he admits it to be possible that he may be 
wrong, but finds it intolerable to be told so. As he must be obeyed 
in all his judgments, though not ex cathedra, it seems a pity he 
could not likewise give the comforting assurance that they are 
all certain to be right." 

The Third Chapter of the Vatican Decree is the BODY, while 
the Fourth is the SOUL, of the Catholic system — can Mr. Farrell 
separate soul and body? He says he can: "we would pay no 



402 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

attention to him," the pope, as to his mandates involving Obedi- 
ence! 

As to an individual, this rule of conduct may be followed : but 
does the system allow it? No. 

When shall we believe one is truthful, when he says he will act 
a certain way under given circumstances, or when he SWEARS 
on the Bible that he will be obedient to all that is required of him? 
To be truthful, honest, and convincing in the first instance, he 
would have to "come out from among them," while to confirm the 
oath of allegiance only requires adherence to the system. 



CONCLUSION 

In the spirit of Mr. Wesley, I would say, safeguard religious 
and civil liberty by keeping the means of their destruction out of 
the hands of their enemies. 

When Romanism is in the minority, the cry of "persecution for 
religion" is raised, when one discusses these things; where the 
pope has a sufficient majority, all these things are enforced. 

Many so-called Protestants — preachers, jurists, professional 
men, etc. — say they do not, will not, believe any thing against the 
Catholic church: Christ warned Jerusalem, wept over His people 
— they nailed Him to the tree, but they perished ; long, long before 
His time, a man warned his people: as he hammered day in and 
day out, year in and year out, he was mocked as a harmless 
fanatic; he kept hammering away on the Ark, and when the 
deluge came, floated away in safety, the others perished; many 
of these so-called Protestants would think a lot of people were 
mistaken as to the date, and were celebrating the Fourth of July 
out of time, if they should look out on the street and see the 
Massacre of St. Bartholomew re-enacted before their very eyes. 
And right here I will repeat: such men are either Romanists in 
disguise or are the tools of the system, and should receive the 
same consideration at the hands of non-Catholics as Bavarian 
Jesuits — or worse 

The pope teaches Catholics that it is better for them to die 
rather than sever their connection with him; we would not have 
them die — let them live, but sever their connection with the affairs 
of the City, County, State and National Governments of America. 

To this end, every man who believes in his Country and in God, 
must strive; those not connected with the Catholic church yet 
"love her so" should aid in this, as a means of finally aiding the 
Catholic church to become a religious instead of a political 
machine. 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 403 

To every inhabitant of American soil — to every one who lives 
and enjoys the blessings protected by the Stars and Stripes, I 
say in the words of one of old, "Choose ye this day whom ye will 
serve," and that Faith in, is shown by Obedience to, it; and such 
can not be given in shreds! 

A man of unquestioned veracity informed me that he never 
heard but one sermon from the pulpit of his church for forty 
years on Romanism, and that one was forced : the pastor learned 
that a certain member refused to say "I believe in the Holy Cath- 
olic Church," and in a single sermon endeavored to show the dif- 
ference between the "Holy" Catholic Church and the "Roman" 
Catholic church! 

Is this not typical of all non-Catholic churches? Is not this the 
reason why the present generation looks upon Romanism as it does 
any other church, and knows nothing about the laws and doc- 
trines of the papal church?* Roman Catholicism has fostered this 
condition, as well as turned it to advantage; because the Protes- 
tants have not pointed out the evils of the system, the people as 
a whole have been indifferent, while Rome has concentrated her 
forces toward keeping the people asleep, at the same time inject- 
ing the "sap" of papalism "into all the veins of the State" and 
minds of the people, through the public schools and politics ; mili- 
tantly battling to make America dominantly Catholic, she is put- 
ting her minions in our public schools as teachers — but keeping 
our teachers out of hers, the parochial school; through political 
chicanery and a solid vote in national politics to be delivered to 
the highest bidder, almost every office within the gift of a politi- 
cal party is given to the "faithful" — judgships, postmasters, spe- 
cial agents, Indian schools, appropriations for papal institutions, 
army and navy posts ; as illustrative, before America entered the 
war, Mr. Wilson put a Roman Catholic in every office he could 
create, while during the war, the most important and strategic 
positions of war work activities were put into papal hands — war 

*In this connection I offer for consideration the following from the "Bureau 
of Information" of Our Sunday Visitor, April 20, 1919 : 

"Could you give me some reasons for Catholics pledging that their children 
will be reared as Catholics in the case of a Catholic and Protestant marrying? 
Reasons that seem valid to us sometimes fail to convince Protestants. 

"The requirement on the part of the Church that a non-Catholic party to a 
mixed marriage consent in writing to have his children baptized and brought 
up Catholics can be made to appear most reasonable. In fact, the Catholic 
Church, believing as she does that she is God's representative on earth, must 
do what would protect God's interests, and safeguard His Faith. The average 
Protestant believes that one religion is as good as another ; hence he can not 
reasonably object to having his children brought up Catholics. But the Cath- 
olic does not believe this ; hence, she would sacrifice principle in permitting 
her children to be brought up outside her Faith. The non-Catholic who is not 
affiliated with any church usually believes that it is better to have his children 
brought up in some religion ; why not in the Catholic religion then, whose 
teachings and principles and Sacraments tend to establish a stronger spiritual 
foundation than any other religion can lay?" 



404 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

boards, head of naval work, ship building, aeroplane construc- 
tion, Red Cross; the Masonic fraternity was barred from the can- 
tonments as such, as were all Protestant denominations (the bars 
being lowered a little, under pressure) , while Rome was given a 
free hand; in the spring of 1918 the Knights of Columbus wanted 
$8,000,000 to carry on their work, and had to get non-Catholics 
to send out begging letters for aid : in the fall, Mr. Wilson ordered 
a combined drive for war activities, and Rome was allotted $30,- 
000,000 as her share! 

A cardinal, Farley, died in New York — newspapers carried the 
story that among the dignitaries present were representatives of 
Secretary of War Baker and Secretary of the Navy Daniels. On 
his fiftieth anniversary jubilee, Cardinal Gibbons received con- 
gratulatory letters from President Wilson and Secretary Mc- 
Adoo ; it would take a book the size of this almost to recount all 
the special favors the papal contingent has received at the hands 
of politicians to win the solid vote. 

I witnessed the "Field Mass" at Camp Wheeler, when Bishop 
Ben. J. Keiley officiated, using a number of the soldiers and shoot- 
ing guns "to the greater glory of God" — while any Protestant 
preacher would have been ordered out of the camp if a purely 
sectarian sermon should have been delivered by him; even on the 
Mexican border Protestant preachers were forbidden to preach 
evangelical sermons, while Rome was in full evidence! 

So adroitly has Rome worked, and schemed, that the most un- 
constitutional measures can be introduced in Congress, and the 
press makes no mention of it, while the ministry appears to have 
been choloroformed — some resenting the effort to get them to 
Protest 

The papacy has hurled anathema against the printing press: 
that is really the only weapon Rome fears — PUBLICITY. She 
will come out victorious from every battle, if she can control the 
press. By intimidations, threats, boycott, mob and murder, Rome 
has endeavored to prevent publicity — she can not live if the Light 
is turned on her religion or politics, and here is where non-Cath- 
lics must concentrate their efforts: not especially in the matter 
of breaking Rome's grip on the secular press, but use the printing 
press: the different denominations should force their respective 
Sunday School Boards to parallel every lesson or text used in the 
Sunday School with the papal dogma or decree concerning it; in- 
stitute an educational campaign as to Romanism just as was done 
in the matter of the pet business of Romanists, the liquor traffic; 
this work should be supplemented by sermons at least once a 
month from every Protestant pulpit, while every man and woman 
who values our civilization and does not want to see America be- 
come as Spain or Ireland under priest-and-politician rule should 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 405 

join an organization or organize one, to combat political Roman- 
ism in the political field. 

Rome is organized to the man, woman, boy and girl, and papal- 
ism is constantly drilled into them. 

If Protestant preachers believe in their faith and church, they 
should evidence the fact by protesting, or go over into the papal 
camp and cease to be hypocrites or secret Romanists; if Ameri- 
cans value the Constitution, they should organize to protect it, or 
get into the ranks of the Italian Dictator of human affairs, the 
papal church! 

That the American people are as uninformed as to Rome's poli- 
tics as they are as to her "religion" is patent to every one; I feel 
sure there are not two people in every one hundred non-Catholics, 
not excepting Protestant ministers, who have ever read before 
what I have presented from "The Glories of Mary," hence, non- 
Catholics are indifferent, and would as soon see their children 
going to the parochial or convent school as to the public school; 
the fact is, many parents, in their blindness, send their children 
to these schools, putting them within the subtleness of Catholi- 
cism at the impressionable age — the age when the tender twig 
may be twisted and distorted to grow up leaning the wrong way 
if not absolutely an advocate. Sure, Rome promises not to inter- 
fere with the religion of pupils, and, according to Jesuitical soph- 
istry, they do not interfere with the religion of such children 
because — they had no religion to begin with ! so, to make Roman- 
ists of them is violative of no pledge. 

Mr. Wesley was writing in 1780. Mr Gladstone in 1875 : in 
1914-1918 England, "a heretical" nation, was at war — beaten to 
her knees; with her "back against the wall" she called on her sub- 
jects for assistance in this crisis when national existence was in 
the balance: "Defend the Flag, Men of Ireland!" We "keep no 
faith with heretics," replied the Catholic Irish; "Stand by your 
Country, Men of Canada!" We "keep no faith with heretics," 
responded the Roman Catholics in Canada; "Your Country Calls 
You, Men of Australia!" We "keep no faith with heretics," an- 
swered the Roman Catholics in Australia: ("We would pay no 
attention to him," said Mr Farrell!) If England had heeded such 
men as Wesley and Gladstone, and many others of that class of 
students and statesmen, all men under the British Flag would 
have been a unit against her foes, and the Great War may have 
been terminated victoriously without involving the United States! 

That Romanists are bound by the Law of Obedience as well as 
Papal Dogma, I believe has been established beyond question; 
that the pope has the power to release his members from any oath 
of allegiance, not even a Catholic will deny: AND IF THE 
WHOLE "HERETICAL" WORLD HAD BEEN BEATEN TO 



406 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

ITS KNEES DURING THIS GREAT WAR WITH ITS "BACK 
AGAINST THE WALL," WITH HIS AGENTS AND THE 
PRIESTS IN EVERY REGIMENT AND EVERY BATTERY 
AND EVERY BATTLESHIP AND IN EVERY STRATEGIC 
GOVERNMENTAL POSITION AND IN CHARGE OF AL- 
MOST EVERY GREAT WAR MANUFACTURING INTER- 
EST AND IN CHARGE OF RED CROSS FUNDS AND IN 
CHARGE OF SHIP BUILDING AND SHIPPING AND IN 
COMMAND OF ARMIES AND FLEETS, like a flash of light- 
ning the order to enforce that old decree, "KEEP NO FAITH 
WITH HERETICS," COULD HAVE BEEN SOUNDED 
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, and a nation's own guns have 
been trained on its own flag! 

To admit that the pope has the power to do this, is to prove the 
conclusion that he would, if "EXPEDIENCY" should ever war- 
rant; for the very existence of a right or power is prima facie 
evidence that it is to be used when best suited for its exercise; 
therefore, no Roman Catholic should enjoy the right to vote, sit 
on juries, or be elected or appointed to any public office, or have 
the children of the country under their influence in public or 
private schools. 

The Canon Law by Taunton is a presentation of the Law as 
found in about one hundred and seventy-five volumes written by 
other canonists on the same subject, covering different periods 
from about the year 1504 and ending 1905, in which are all the 
decrees, issued by popes and councils, from the earliest ages of 
the Roman church: under the subject of "Civil Court," he says: 

"Those who have recourse to the lay power to impede the letters 
or any acts emanating from the Apostolic See or from any of the 
Legates or delegates of the same, and preventing, directly or in- 
directly, their promulgation or execution, or on account of these 
hurting or terrifying either the parties or others, incur excom- 
munication reserved in a special manner to the Roman Pontiff. 
Hence, those who appeal to the CIVIL COURTS AGAINST THE 
ORDERS OR DECISIONS OF THE HOLY SEE FALL UN- 
DER THE CENSURE," p. 191. 

Now, by the Constitution "Apostolicae Sedis" by Pius IX, 1869, 
cited elsewhere, THE ENTIRE NON-CATHOLIC WORLD HAS 
BEEN EXCOMMUNICATED: and should the pope in person or 
through his agents deem it expedient to issue letters calling on the 
"faithful" in any country, or all over the world, to fall upon, and 
make war against, heretics, to "extirpate" "the filth of heresy" 
from the face of the globe, THE SAME LAW THAT MAKES 
ONE A ROMAN CATHOLIC, PREVENTS HIM FROM AP- 
PEALING TO THE CIVIL COURTS or to the LAWS OF THE 
LAND to arrest such orders of the pope, or to stay his agents in 
their transmission. This law, coupled with the above decree, stig- 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 407 

matizes every Roman Catholic AS A POTENTIAL TRAITOR 
to the country that gives him protection; and the suspicion, if 
there is nothing here but suspicion, that he would be disloyal to 
the country where he lives and hence is a "bad" citizen remains 
with him till the crucial test is made, and he proves that he would 
disobey the LAW that MAKES him a Romanist and gives him 
his "religion." 

The right of the pope and his priests to absolve from any sin or 
to nullify any oath is the same "Right" the German Kaiser exer- 
cised during the Great War, the Delbruck Law, by which a Ger- 
man citizen of America could go before the Kaiser's agent any- 
where in America or in the world, and cast off his obligation to 
his adopted country and re-assume an oath of allegiance to the 
German Empire; and from the exercise of this "right," many of 
those who up to the war were looked upon as "such nice, kind, 
lovable neighbors" became the most bitter enemies of this Gov- 
ernment, numbers being interned, put in prison, etc., to prevent 
them from doing damage to the country and people who thought 
they were loyal citizens. A person should not be admitted to citi- 
zership where the laws of his native land provide for this; and 
no one should be made an American citizen or given any of the 
political and civil rights of citizenship who adheres to any theory 
of government that teaches this "right." 

Suspicion and distrust must attach to those who belong to a 
system that propagates such tenets. This is especially referred 
to Mr. Farrell regarding his letter on "Trust" and "Suspicion," 
and to Mr. A. J. Long as to what may constitute "bad" citizen- 
ship. 



RETROSPECTIVE 

In his letter of November 10, 1917, Mr. Farrell says that the 
purpose of the Laymen's Association is "to bring about a more 
friendly relation among all citizens, regardless of creed," which 
in itself is an acknowledgment that unfriendly relations exist be- 
cause of creed — the creed of papalism. Where estrangement 
seems to exist, to bring about "more friendly relations" requires 
an understanding and adjustment of that which was the cause, 
looking to its removal; with this general view in mind, I sub- 
mitted a number of questions, thirty-two in all, which appear to 
have been answered by a priest or cleric who made little if any 
effort to remove misunderstanding, considering a question as 
being presumptuous or impertinent, and has absolutely failed to 
make satisfactory answers to Questions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 
practically 32, although they all pertain to matters which vitally 



408 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

concern all non-Catholics, and the general welfare of the country. 

Being an association organized supposedly for the sole purpose 
of informing non-Catholics what are the faith, practices and 
rights of Roman Catholics, I had a right to expect true, clear, 
authoritative answers to all of those questions on the part of the 
Laymen's Association; instead of making such answers, the let- 
ters will show equivocation and evasion in almost every instance. 

In his letter, October 3, 1917, Mr. Farrell said that "suspicion" 
was "running like a poison stream" through my paper; that I 
was suspicious of the Roman church is evidenced by my questions, 
AND IT WAS HIS BUSINESS, as spokesman for the Catholic 
church in Georgia, TO AT LEAST MAKE AN HONEST EF- 
FORT TO PURIFY THIS "POISON STREAM" BY SUCH 
ARGUMENT AND PROOF AS AN INTELLIGENT PERSON 
WOULD ADVANCE IF HE WAS SINCERE IN HIS PRO- 
FESSIONS. 

DOUBLE-DEALING OF THE CHURCH OF ROME 

In hurriedly scanning the Laws of the Church of Rome, I find 
the following: 

"The work of preaching can be committed to a cleric, even if 
not in sacred orders, but never to laics." — Cf. V, Lateran Council. 
Do the many letters herein from the association appear to be the 
work of a "laic" or "cleric" (layman or priest) ? 

To preserve a government "of the people, for the people, and 
by the people," it is necessary that those who are to perpetuate 
it be educated to an appreciation of such a State. Recogniz- 
ing this, our forefathers provided for the maintenance of the free 
public school system; it was their purpose to have the youth of 
the land to come up together in that school, all having an eye 
single to the welfare of the democratic form of government they 
had established. If the free school should ever be destroyed, down 
goes the Constitution before Autocracy, therefore every neces- 
sary means should be employed to safeguard the free school sys- 
tem and through that the safety of the Government, first, by 
Congress or the various States passing a law making it illegal to 
employ any person in an official or teaching capacity in the free 
public school system who is a member of any society or organiza- 
tion whatsoever the tenets of which are opposed to the principle 
of said State school system of education, or if said tenets of a 
society or organization is opposed in any manner to the princi- 
ples of the Constitution of these United States; it should also be 
unlawful for any private school to exist unless it is under the 
supervision of the Board of Education of the respective counties, 
which should see that the same curriculum is provided in private 



The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 409 

as in public schools, and require the same degree of efficiency in 
teacher and pupil in the private as in the public school in all 
grammar grades. 

If it would be illogical and suicidal to place enemies in the 
army and navy during war times, it is just as illogical to place 
enemies of the free school and of the Government where they can 
strike at the most vital point — education. 

It should also be unlawful for the State or National Govern- 
ment to furnish money or supplies to any school not under the 
control of the public school system, and no school except the 
public should be permitted to give military training. 

These suggestions are offered to all who are interested in 
"Americanizing" America — and there can be no compromise. 

When I submitted the original thirty-two questions to Mr. Far- 
rell, there was no means of knowing the great task before me — 
great, when one considers the limited time at the disposal of a 
busy man. From the nature of the work, which suffered from 
almost interminable interruptions, attending to it a little to-day, 
a little from time to time, as I had to do, the literary critic will be 
disappointed ; but as to that, I have made a special effort to place 
every subject before the "jury" in the simplest manner so that all 
questions would be fairly well understood by laymen generally. 

This is a question which should engage the mind and heart of 
every true American citizen, and every political party, and every 
man who serves the Nation in the capacity of lawmaker. 

That it can no longer be brushed aside has been recognized by 
a number of representative lawyers and Protestant ministers, 
who have, with the assistance of others, perfected organizations 
which are becoming national in scope, amalgamating not only all 
non-Catholic BAPTIZED for such action as will meet the enemies 
of the Constitution — white or black, native or foreign — anywhere 
they may choose to pitch the battle, but will admit all who love 
that LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY which gave us the Great 
Constitution ; literature of various kinds will be issued under the 
auspices of certain organizations, the purposes of which are 
to maintain the Constitution and destroy any politician who 
would even consent to its nullification in any particular except 
by the process made and provided therein. 

While the Roman Catholic church is a mighty organization, 
yet it is composed entirely of secret societies which are oath- 
bound to the Pope of Rome — societies that no one can join except 
Catholics, and of which almost every one is a member — and that 
the specific purpose of each is to further the cause of the pope is 
proven by the fact that they would not be sanctioned by the hier- 
archy or be permitted to exist for any other purpose. 



410 The Roman Catholic Church Challenged 

Although this purely foreign cult is thoroughly organized and 
ruled by laws which propose to set up a perfect government ex- 
clusive of all other governments, it is militantly opposed to other 
secret societies; this antagonism has so permeated the public 
mind that even intelligent citizens have absorbed Rome's insidious 
propaganda to the extent that some say they do not believe in 
organizations being formed by American citizens to oppose this 
institution which seeks to destroy the Constitution. This self- 
same foreign influence has also succeeded to some extent in mak- 
ing it very unpopular to speak of upholding the Constitution, 
defend the free school system, or other rights guaranteed by the 
supreme law of the land; but the day will soon come when it will 
be unpopular not to be open and above board in favor of the Con- 
stitution and the institutions thereunder, as individuals or politi- 
cal parties. 

There are really only three classes of people who oppose organ- 
izing to resist the encroachments of the pope as defined by dogma 
and law: first, diseased-brained individuals who, if they were to 
have their own throats cut, would gurgle with their dying gasp, 
"You play too rough ! " second, people who are so loyal to the Con- 
stitution themselves and so honest-minded that they can not con- 
ceive of any one belonging to a "church" whose sole aim is to 
destroy American laws and institutions and substitute those of a 
foreign ruler as are presented in these pages — good people, who 
have not considered what the papal church intends and expects to 
accomplish, as epitomized in the bishop's oath; third, a class com- 
posed of secret members of the foreign "army," who may be 
camouflaged under the garb of Protestant ministers filling Protes- 
tant pulpits, sitting in the editorial chairs of newspapers, or hold- 
ing the highest positions of honor and influence in various fra- 
ternal secret societies. 

Like Mr. Wesley, I would not countenance harming Catholics — 
merely make it impossible for them to harm other people or the 
principles of this Government; therefore, I say to the men of 
America : Our greater number constitutes the real danger, where 
each person believes there are enough men "on the job" to make 
it unnecessary for them to devote time or money to the cause, 
forgetting the true saying that "What's everybody's business is 
nobody's business," and without organization we are as a mob, 
helpless before well-drilled forces which, while inferior numeri- 
cally, are resistless and will become supreme unless met with 
organized resistance. 

Not only is the Roman church in control of almost the whole 
foreign element and keeps it segregated as far as possible, render- 
ing proper assimilation out of the question, but she is now con- 
centrating upon the/toegro, establishing parochial schools for them 



The Roman- Catholic Church Challenged 411 

which are taught by white Catholic women. To impress the negro 
with the interest the papal church has for his welfare, Bishop 
Keiley contributed an article to the press last year wherein he 
deplored the lynchings which had occurred in the South, but had 
no word in behalf of the victims who were criminally assaulted. 
Imagine — if your brain is active enough — the negro imbued with 
the doctrine and law and rights which they expect to enjoy by 
becoming Catholics, coupled with his natural resentment against 
the people of the South because of his previous servitude and 
restless disposition, and taught that he is doing God's will to "per- 
secute and fight" — what is to be expected from this combination? 
By way of parenthesis, I will ask, WHY is the papal church so 
concerned about the Negro and Indian in America — where they 
may vote — but gives no attention to the education of the various 
races of all colors where education is in the hands of her priests? 
There is absolutely no possibility of federating the Protestant 
forces, because preachers and editors are usually too preoccupied 
with their own little affairs, or afraid it would injure their "popu- 
larity" to espouse the cause of Americanism. It is said that 
nature abhors a vacuum: because those voices are silent which 
should ring out as bugle-calls at the approach of the enemy, 
other means are being adopted to accomplish that which should 
have been the first thought of those who presume to mould public 
opinion but have refused to function: there are now several 
powerful organizations disseminating information along this line, 
some of which WILL preserve the Constitution, and make its 
enemies very, very conspicuous; and if Americans would preserve 
the God-given, blood-bought heritage of freedom made possible by 
the sacrifices of their forefathers and written in the greatest 
human document ever written, the Constitution of these United 
States, they must organize! organize! ORGANIZE! 

"Where duty calls or danger, 
Be never wanting there." 

One of the greatest enemies of American civilization, one of 
the most powerful forces for evil in the land, the liquor interests, 
challenged Protestant Christianity and was buried recently; and 
just as it required time to get the forces awake to that terrible 
scourge, so will it require time, money and labor to comprehen- 
sively present the PAPAL QUESTION, but when it is fully 
understood in America then indeed we will see 

"THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH CHALLENGED" 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 318 628 9 



